export_company_report_markdown

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a file is created at a relative project path; it does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, what data the report includes, or any side effects or permissions required.

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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action and deliverable, containing no filler. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary parameter and behavior details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has three parameters with zero semantic coverage and no annotations. The description is far too thin to guide an agent in setting required fields like cik and contact_email or understanding the report generation behavior.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not mention cik, contact_email, or output_path. The only parameter-related hint is 'relative project path,' which does not clarify the meaning or format of any argument.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the deliverable ('Markdown company research report') with a location ('relative project path'). It is distinguishable from the sibling export_company_report_pdf by the output format, though it does not mention the underlying data source or report contents.

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 when a Markdown report is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings like export_company_report_pdf or analyze_company. It does not state prerequisites such as why cik and contact_email are required.

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