get_market_share

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns 'latest % value and as-of date', indicating a read operation, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or permissions. Basic behavioral transparency is present but incomplete.

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 concise, using a single sentence with examples in parentheses. It front-loads the purpose and return format. However, it could be slightly more structured for clarity (e.g., separating input and output descriptions).

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('latest % value and as-of date'). However, it does not specify whether the response is an array or object, nor the exact structure. The tool is simple, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 description does not clarify the 'slug' parameter beyond implying it identifies a company. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail is expected (e.g., format, example). The mention of 'for a company' provides minimal semantic context.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all market share metrics for a company, with examples of metrics and return format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_markets' or 'get_revenue_mix', which limits clarity in distinguishing use cases.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual hints. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusion criteria.

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