load_sectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the write destination (table `sectors`), the row scope (all 37 sectors), and the freshness cadence (15-minute snapshot), but says nothing about whether existing rows are replaced or appended, whether the load is idempotent, or what access it needs.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the most important information (what is loaded and where it lands) is front-loaded. The parenthetical field list and cadence both earn their 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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. For a no-parameter ingestion tool the description covers scope, destination, and freshness; only the overwrite/replace semantics of the load are left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description has nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the mention of 'all 37 sectors' usefully confirms there is no filtering capability rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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?

Specific verb (Load) plus a precisely scoped resource (PSX sector summary: advances, declines, turnover, market cap for all 37 sectors) and the destination table `sectors`. An agent immediately knows what the tool produces, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings like load_index or load_prices.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over load_index, load_prices, or load_screener, nor any prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent signal is the '15-min snapshot' cadence, which hints at refresh frequency but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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