analyze_budget_live

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it detects mentions of specific sectors and returns instant mappings, and accepts partial text. However, it does not explain what happens on no matches, potential limitations, or the exact structure of the output, though the output schema exists to help.

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: a one-line summary, usage instructions, an illustrative example, a list of detected topics, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the example clarifies the expected mapping, making the description concise yet informative.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage well. It explains when and how to use it and what it returns. Missing are edge-case behaviors like handling of unrecognized text, but these are minor for a niche tool.

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 zero description coverage for the 'text' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining it as 'Budget speech transcript text (paste directly from live broadcast)' with usage instructions. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, making it easy for an agent to know what to provide.

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 purpose: a real-time budget speech analyzer that maps speech text to sector/stock impact. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and identifies the resource (budget speech) and output (sector + stock impact), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_budget_impact which may serve a different function.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'use on Feb 1st as FM speaks' and instructs to paste the speech text, including partial text. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the real-time/live framing implies a clear trigger for use.

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