Get macro themes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the content type (narrative layer) but doesn't disclose details like data freshness or pagination. With minimal constraints (zero parameters), this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, includes helpful examples in parentheses, and closes with a clear usage statement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (themes and sectors) and why to use it. The examples ground the concept for an agent, making the tool fully understandable without additional details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameters require explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns current macro investment themes with related sectors, providing specific examples (e.g., rate-cut beneficiaries, AI capex). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing as the 'narrative layer' for thematic idea generation, which is unique among the many macro and stock tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for thematic idea generation that ties stocks to a macro thesis,' giving a clear usage context. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is specific enough to differentiate it from other macro tools like get_macro_indicator or get_macro_dashboard.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.