get_agm_brief

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses its core behavior: it flags specific categories of unusual resolutions (debt issuance, salary hikes, related-party transactions, etc.), which is substantial behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any limitations or data source caveats, though the 'AI briefing' label and NSE source are implicitly transparent.

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: it opens with the purpose, lists flags in a clear bullet-style format, includes a relatable example, and closes with the Args section. It is somewhat verbose and includes a rhetorical question that could be trimmed, but every section contributes to understanding, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema present, and a description covering purpose, flags, and parameter format, the tool is effectively complete for selection and invocation. The only gaps are the lack of explicit usage restrictions (e.g., unsupported exchanges) and no mention of output shape, but the existing output schema covers the latter, so the description is nearly exhaustive.

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 description explicitly defines the 'symbol' parameter as an NSE symbol with concrete examples (RELIANCE, ZEEL, ADANIENT), far exceeding the schema's bare type string. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description and gives the agent clear guidance on what value 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 provides an AI briefing on AGM/EGM resolutions from NSE filings, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stock_brief or get_morning_brief by focusing on unusual resolution flags, and the list of flagged items makes the purpose concrete.

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 implies usage when assessing upcoming shareholder meeting risk (e.g., the example question about a debt raise), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions like symbol availability or market coverage, so it remains at implied-level guidance.

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