group_rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds analytic context (relative strength, 1W/1M/3M/6M rank change windows, weekly movers, constituent detail), but says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or how the ranking universe is derived.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the analytical scope is front-loaded and the group-passing instruction follows. Slightly dense/run-on in the first sentence but well structured overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers ranking content and the group-detail mode adequately. However, the 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented and no relationship to sibling tools is given, leaving gaps for a 3-param listing 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 coverage is 67% and the description adds real meaning only for 'group' (its rank history and strongest stocks), which extends the schema's terse 'detail and constituents'. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and 'market' is already covered by the schema, so the description does not fully compensate for 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 names a specific analysis (IBD-style industry group rankings by relative strength) plus the timeframes and extras returned, so the resource and verb are unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like market_overview or run_screen, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 sentence 'Pass a group name for its rank history and strongest stocks' implicitly tells the agent the two modes of use (list rankings vs. drill into one group), which is useful. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling alternative is named, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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