market_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data scope are covered. The description adds the content scope of the payload but says nothing about data freshness/delay, caching, or cost — relevant for market data, though not required given the annotations and the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause maps to a returned data category. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each earns its place by telling the agent what the payload contains.

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 defining the return shape, read-only/open-world annotations covering the safety profile, and a single well-documented optional parameter, the definition is largely sufficient. The missing piece is usage routing — when to prefer this over group_rankings or run_screen — and any note on data recency.

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?

There is one optional parameter (market) with 100% schema description coverage, including a default of 'US' and a pointer to list_markets. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Names a concrete deliverable (a market-health snapshot) and enumerates the specific content it aggregates: exposure score/stance, breadth metrics, index moves, and leading industry groups. An agent can tell it apart from get_stock or run_screen, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is the consolidated first-stop for market context, which is a weak usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., group_rankings for drill-down).

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