telemost_sentiment_llm

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the tool is paid per call and outputs specific components (label, score, trend, summary). This enriches the behavioral profile beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, with two sentences that pack essential information without excess. The first sentence is dense but efficient, and the second adds cost context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the output (label, score, trend, summary) and the use case, but leaves parameter semantics vague and does not mention alternatives. With no output schema, more detail about expected results would be helpful, yet the core purpose is sufficiently clear.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'period' or 'source' parameters. The only hint is that the tool works for a 'channel, group or topic', which roughly maps to 'topic' but leaves the other parameters undefined, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it performs sentiment analysis using an LLM, returning a label, score, trend, and summary for a channel, group, or topic. The explicit mention of 'LLM verdict' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'telemost_sentiment', providing clear differentiation.

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 phrase 'Gauge audience mood or brand perception before acting' gives a concrete use case, and the note about being paid per call with a pointer to telemost_catalog offers practical guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternative tools.

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