get_stock_debate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the sequential 3-round process, including each round's purpose, that agents can change their minds, and the returned fields (rounds, debate_edges, minds_changed, final_consensus). This gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior.

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 lead sentence, round breakdown, an interpretive tip, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 a complex tool with multiple rounds and rich output (including nested fields), the description thoroughly covers the process, return structure, and interpretation cues. An output schema exists, but the description still provides needed context beyond it.

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 only parameter 'symbol' is fully explained in the description as 'NSE stock symbol (e.g. RELIANCE, TCS, HDFCBANK)', adding examples and exchange context not present in the minimal schema (which just says 'string'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '3-round sequential debate: AI agents read each other's arguments and rebut.' It clearly states the tool's function and explicitly contrasts it with get_stock_brief (parallel analysis), distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly names an alternative ('Unlike get_stock_brief (parallel analysis)') and provides usage context by explaining the debate format. The 'Watch for minds_changed... signals a complex setup worth closer attention' gives practical guidance on when to use the tool or how to interpret results.

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