get_top_growth_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve', implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'growth' means (e.g., based on metrics like revenue or stock performance). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a tool that retrieves ranked data (implying sorting and criteria like 'growth'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'growth' entails, the data source, return format, or error handling, making it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('sector' and 'top_n'). It implies filtering by sector but doesn't explain semantics like how 'growth' is measured or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('top growth companies in a specific sector'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_companies' or 'get_top_performing_companies', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'get_top_companies' or 'get_top_performing_companies', leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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