egx_market_overview

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a note about default timeframe for stocks, which is a minor behavioral detail. But it doesn't disclose what the overview includes (market cap, indices, sectors?) or any aggregation behavior, which is significant for a 'comprehensive overview' tool. With annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences plus an Args block. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block repeats schema defaults but adds allowed values for timeframe, which is useful. No filler or waste.

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?

For a market overview tool with a generic 'comprehensive' claim, it lacks details on what data is returned (indices, sectors, top movers?), how limit interacts with categories, and whether there are any exclusions. The sibling list shows other specialized tools, so this should clarify its scope. No output schema, so the description must do more to set expectations. It is not complete enough.

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 schema provides no semantic help for the two parameters. The description explains 'timeframe' with allowed values and 'limit' as 'stocks per category', which adds meaning. However, it doesn't define what 'per category' means (sectors? indices?) or explain the number of categories, leaving ambiguity about how limit impacts the output. This is a gap given zero schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Get a comprehensive overview of the Egyptian Exchange (EGX) market'), which is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like egx_sector_scan and egx_stock_screener by focusing on a market-level comprehensive overview. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other EGX tools, only implies it.

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 provides context for use (comprehensive overview) but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives, despite many sibling EGX tools. The default timeframe hint for stocks ('1D for stocks') implies usage but is not explicit about when to choose this over egx_sector_scan or egx_index_analysis.

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