load_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key mutation trait: re-loading replaces only that index's rows (idempotent per-index refresh). It says nothing about data source, network/auth requirements, whether other indices are touched, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and destination table front-loaded before the re-load caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action, destination, and upsert semantics. For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, an extra note on data source or error behavior would round it out.

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 0% for the single `name` parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, by enumerating valid index identifiers (KSE100, KSE30, KMI30), which effectively defines the parameter domain. It still does not state format expectations (case sensitivity, whether aliases work), so it is strong but not complete.

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 (Load) and resource (constituents and weights of a PSX index) and names the destination table `index_constituents`, with concrete examples (KSE100, KSE30, KMI30) that pin down what an 'index' is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like load_prices or load_sectors, but the resource is distinct enough to be inferred.

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 description implies use (populating the `index_constituents` table) and clearly states re-load semantics, but never says when to call it versus siblings such as load_symbols or load_screener, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than stated.

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