get_market_briefing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is cache-only (no API call), specifies supported plans, explains when fields are null (e.g., margin/short-ratio fields when caches absent), and details return components. This significantly supplements annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary of returns and parameters, but slightly lengthy due to comprehensive return field listing. Still, it is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, output schema, rich annotations, and many siblings, the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage context, parameters, return structure, caching behavior, and plan restrictions. No gaps.

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?

Input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining date format (YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD), sector_type options (s33 default, s17 alternative), and n (topN size, 1–100, default 5), including ranges and defaults.

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 provides a daily market briefing covering ADR, sector ranking, top movers, turnover, and screener highlights. It includes Japanese keywords and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_sector_briefing and get_stock_briefing.

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 explicitly lists use cases (e.g., 相場ブリーフィング, daily briefing) and provides clear alternatives: for sector valuation use get_sector_briefing, for single-stock details use get_stock_briefing.

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