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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: intraday vs. closing-price fallback, the CSV return format (one row per symbol), and the partial-failure behavior (bad symbols return empty fields rather than failing the whole batch, plus a trailing note listing not-found or ambiguous symbols with candidates). This is exactly the kind of context the description should provide.

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 well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then flows through timing, return format, and error handling. Every clause earns its place—there is no filler. The length is proportionate to the tool's moderately complex behavior (fallback, partial success, trailing note), and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers the return format (CSV, one row per symbol, with price/change/change%), the trailing note, timeliness, and the follow-up action for ambiguous symbols. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the response is missing. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit CSV description.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both `all` and `symbols`, including their mutual exclusivity, format, typo-tolerance, and limit of 50. The description reasserts the 'one or more symbols, or every CSE stock' concept but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a live price snapshot for CSE stocks -- price, change, and change%'. It clearly states the scope (one or more symbols, or all) and differentiates from a single-symbol lookup via an explicit comparison. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the other get_* tools (e.g., announcements, chart, OHLC).

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 gives clear temporal usage context: 'During market hours (09:30-14:30 IST)... outside market hours it falls back to the last session's closing price.' It also instructs the agent to 'call again with the exact symbol' when results are ambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for excluded scenarios (e.g., historical data should use get_ohlc_data), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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