analyze_qualitative

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it states the tool scans SEC filings and earnings calls, produces a 0-100 score, and handles both predefined and custom themes. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation; the schema's mention of auto-creating a portfolio is not in the main description and does not factor here.

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: the first states the tool's core function and output, the second gives the key invocation and theming options. It is tightly worded with no fluff, properly front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria (which input to use, what themes to provide) without spelling out every optional parameter. The existence of an output schema partially removes the need to describe return values. Minor gaps include not explaining precedence if both portfolio_id and tickers are provided or defaulting of source_types, but these are adequately covered by the schema descriptions.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between portfolio_id and tickers ('Pass either...') and by noting that themes can be predefined or custom, which is not explicit in the schema property description. This enriches the semantic understanding of the 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 begins with a specific verb ('Run qualitative (GRAIN) analysis') and states the resource (SEC filings and earnings calls) and the outcome (score company exposure to themes 0-100). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'analyze_quantitative' and other analytical tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for usage: it supports predefined or custom themes and mandates passing either portfolio_id or tickers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the 'qualitative' vs 'quantitative' sibling distinction is obvious. The either/or guidance is a concrete usage rule.

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