get_stock_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by revealing parallel fetches, partial failure behavior (null with note), and the heuristic nature of overall_bias. No contradiction with 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, front-loading the purpose and then detailing benefits, behavior, and return value. While long, every sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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's complexity (composite of many sources) and lack of output schema, the description fully documents the return structure, partial failure handling, and heuristic hints. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use and interpret results.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('symbol' and 'interval'). The description reinforces that symbol is for a single stock and interval for pattern detection, but adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a comprehensive report on a single stock, listing all components (metadata, screeners, patterns, options flow, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces 5-7 separate calls, 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 explicitly recommends this as the preferred first tool for single-stock queries and warns against also calling primitive tools afterward. It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus notes on graceful partial failures.

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