scan_pledge_risks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait that results are 'sorted by risk level (critical first)' and that scanning is simultaneous, but it does not detail output fields, error handling, or any potential limitations. A 3 is appropriate given the partial disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus an args note. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds valuable context and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 its simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, use case, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps remain regarding interpretation of risk levels or batch limit restrictions, but these are not critical for a scanning 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explicitly defines 'symbols' as 'list of NSE symbols' with concrete examples, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully bridges the gap.

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 action ('Scan multiple NSE stocks for promoter pledge risk simultaneously') with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'promoter_pledge' tool by emphasizing multi-stock scanning, 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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Useful for screening your watchlist or Nifty 500 for pledge dangers.' This implies batch screening over single-stock queries, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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