save_market_study

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses what is persisted (labels, notes, numbers, never page text) and a concrete validation rule (a note repeating 4+ consecutive words of the page is rejected). It does not say whether re-saving overwrites an existing study.

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 action is front-loaded and every clause carries information (field list, vocabulary rule, word-repeat constraint, persistence note). The single dense paragraph is a touch long and could be split, but there is little wasted text.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies workflow position, the notes structure, and validation behavior, making it complete enough to call correctly; only the meaning of 'path' and re-save semantics are absent.

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 carry the param burden. It does this well for notes, enumerating the required fields (appid, short_opening, short_moves, about_shape, about_sections, tone, technique) and the vocabulary constraint, though 'path' is left unexplained. Substantially compensates for the coverage 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 states a specific verb (Save) and resource (labels for the pages study_market returned), and names both the producing sibling (study_market) and the consuming sibling (generate), so an agent can place it in the workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-twin sibling save_review_study, leaving that distinction to inference from the 'market' vs 'reviews' wording.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is called on the output of study_market and generate builds on it afterward, giving a clear before/after position. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites stated (e.g., what happens if a study already exists), so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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