get_intelligence_dossier

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the description earns credit for adding what they don't: a $0.50 cost, the specific external source classes synthesized, adversarial testing, and an optional editorial segment. It still omits latency and why the operation is non-idempotent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the source composition, then the optional add-on and price. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the dossier contains (case studies, reports, quotes, macro metrics, adversarial testing) and discloses cost. It stops short of describing return structure, size, or turnaround expectations for what is a heavy multi-source aggregation call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents topic, sector, userId, tickers, and include_editorial. The description hints at 'emerging theme' for topic and the PSFK briefing for include_editorial but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Assembles') and resource ('certified multi-source Evidence Dossier') with clear scope ('any market topic or emerging theme in a single call'). An agent can tell what it produces, though it never names or contrasts against siblings like deep_research_topic or get_domain_intelligence.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned despite many overlapping siblings (get_evidence, deep_research_topic, get_domain_intelligence). 'In a single call' faintly implies an aggregation/efficiency tradeoff but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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