analyze_sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'objective and unbiased' analysis and specifies output formatting, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or how the analysis is performed (e.g., algorithmic vs. human).

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?

Four sentences with some redundancy ('You are a sentiment analysis tool' repeats the name). The output formatting instruction is useful but could be more efficiently integrated. The description is reasonably short but not optimally structured.

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?

For a sentiment analysis tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, how sentiment is determined from the inputs, what the tool actually does with the provided data, or what the analysis output contains beyond formatting instructions.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'provided rationale' which corresponds to the 'reasoning' parameter but doesn't elaborate on its purpose or format.

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 states 'analyze the sentiment for the given stock symbol' which provides a basic verb+resource, but it's vague about what 'analyze' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like search_news or get_ticker_news that might also provide sentiment insights. The opening 'You are a sentiment analysis tool' is tautological with the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_news for sentiment-related information. The description mentions 'Based on the provided rationale' but doesn't explain what constitutes appropriate rationale or prerequisites for use.

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