egx_sector_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: it shows available sectors when the sector parameter is left empty, it lists allowed timeframe values, and it states a maximum result limit of 50 per sector. These go beyond the annotations and give the agent insight into how the tool behaves. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential rate limits, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear Args list that is easy to parse. Every sentence provides meaningful information; there is no fluff or repetition. The format is ideal for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and parameters.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure, but it does hint at behavior (e.g., listing sectors when empty). It covers the tool's core functionality and parameters adequately. The main gap is the lack of detail about what the scan results look like (e.g., stock symbols, prices, indicators), which might be inferred from the tool's name but is not explicitly stated. For a read-only scanner with annotations covering safety, this is a minor omission, so a 4 is justified.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by providing explicit parameter semantics: it explains what 'sector' is with examples (banks, healthcare_and_pharma, etc.), lists all valid timeframe options, specifies the default and max for limit, and notes the behavior when sector is left empty. This is a comprehensive explanation that adds significant value beyond the bare schema, which only gives types and defaults. The description essentially serves as the documentation for all three parameters.

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's purpose: 'Scan EGX stocks by sector.' This is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions behavior for empty sector input, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'egx_sector_scanner' that appears to have a very similar name and likely function, so it falls short of a 5.

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 some usage context: 'Shows available sectors if none specified' implies a workflow when you don't know the sector names. It also gives parameter guidance in the Args section. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like egx_sector_scanner, egx_market_overview, or egx_stock_screener. There are no exclusions or conditions steering the agent away from other tools, only the general purpose of sector scanning.

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