get_dashboard_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a broad aggregating behavior and does not reveal authentication requirements (e.g., why contact_email is needed), potential rate limits, trigger side effects, or whether it performs multiple underlying calls.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and key content with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the wording 'aggregate company analysis' remains slightly vague.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the aggregating nature, four parameters, and lack of annotations call for more context. The description does not clarify what the dashboard data contains, how parameters affect the response, or any prerequisites, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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% and the tool description does not explain any parameter. The phrase 'optional market data' vaguely hints at 'ticker', but the required 'cik' and especially the non-obvious 'contact_email' are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent without critical invocation details.

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 the specific verb 'aggregate' and identifies distinct resource domains (company analysis, financial trends, optional market data) plus a clear dashboard context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual financial metrics or specific reports.

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 phrase 'for a dashboard' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_company_financials or get_market_snapshot. The description gives no exclusions or decision rules, leaving usage context implicit.

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