get_orats_cores

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It adds helpful context (raw source, depth, field categories) but omits details like read-only nature, rate limits, or response structure. Still, it goes beyond a minimal description and doesn't mislead.

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 organized with a clear introduction, usage bullets, arg documentation, and return description. Every sentence contributes value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description hints at the return format with 'available_field_count says how many exist.' Combined with parameter details and usage context, it gives enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains 'ticker' as 'Stock symbol' and clearly documents 'fields' including special values like 'all' and the empty default that selects ~45 curated fields.

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 function: 'Get raw ORATS "cores" analytics for a ticker — 340+ pre-computed fields.' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself by calling it 'The deepest single call available' and referencing 'curated endpoints' for comparison.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use when the curated endpoints don't carry the specific field you need' and lists concrete scenarios (specific ORATS field by name, deep vendor-level analytics, bulk context). This clearly differentiates from siblings.

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