sentiment_endpoint_v1_enrich_sentiment_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the credit cost and the outputs (polarity, subjectivity, sentiment label) but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, input length constraints, or output formatting. It is not misleading but is minimal.

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-loading the core purpose and adding the cost note. There are no unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and cost but omits output structure (e.g., types of polarity, possible sentiment labels) and constraints like maximum text length. While not critical for calling the tool, richer context would improve agent understanding.

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 single parameter 'text' is fully documented in the schema with an example and a usage hint. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it evaluates emotional tone and lists specific outputs (polarity, subjectivity, sentiment label), clearly distinguishing it from sibling enrichment tools like date, amount, or address analyzers. The parameter description reinforces the purpose by saying 'USE THIS TOOL to gauge user feedback or emotional tone.'

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?

The parameter description explicitly instructs to use this tool for emotional tone analysis, making the intended use case clear. While it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, it is the only sentiment tool among many enrichment siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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