load_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation by saying data is loaded 'into table `symbols`', but does not disclose whether existing rows are replaced, whether the load is idempotent, permissions required, or any rate limits/side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, the data fields, and the destination table without any redundant phrasing.

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 described. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves behavioral questions unanswered — notably whether this load mutates/replaces existing symbol data and when it should be used relative to sibling loaders.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters sets the baseline at 4, and the description does not need to explain anything further about arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('listed PSX symbols'), and names the fields loaded (company name, sector, ETF/debt/GEM flags) plus the destination table (`symbols`). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like load_prices or load_fundamentals, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 says what is loaded but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling loaders such as load_sectors or load_eligible_scrips. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer usage entirely.

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