trading_halts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers thoroughly. It explains row structure, the meaning of `resumed` false ('the stock is still stopped'), code interpretation, non-invention of wording, duplicate rows for repeated halts, and a scraped-source caveat with a directive to treat it as weaker evidence and say so in conclusions.

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 long but densely informative and well-ordered: purpose first, then row fields, then code semantics, then data-source trust caveats. Every sentence contributes operational guidance, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description gives a complete picture of what the agent will receive and how to interpret it, including edge cases and reliability warnings. The only unaddressed piece is the optional `limit` parameter, which is minor given its default and self-explanatory nature.

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 sole parameter, `limit`, is never mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema's title and default provide minimal hints, but the description adds no meaning about how limiting interacts with the 'newest first' ordering or what happens when omitted.

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 opening line names the exact resource: TODAY'S TRADING HALTS AND RESUMPTIONS on US exchanges, newest first. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by calling it 'a catalyst with its own clock, which no other tool here carries,' making its unique value clear.

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 when to use it: when an agent needs halt/resumption history with a time-based catalyst perspective, and it notes no other tool provides this. It does not name a specific alternative or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the niche is clearly delineated.

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