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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned symbol's downstream role, but does not disclose edge-case behavior like no-match handling, multiple results, or matching semantics. It provides some value beyond annotations, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences, no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a single clause that conveys the downstream workflow. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and the intended usage context completely. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented. The description's example ('Apple' → AAPL) is illustrative but adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('stock ticker symbol'), with a concrete example ('Apple' → AAPL). It also explicitly differentiates the tool from siblings by positioning it as the entry point for Stocks whose output feeds stocks_get_quote and stocks_get_chart.

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?

'Start here for Stocks' gives an explicit directive for when to use this tool, and naming stocks_get_quote / stocks_get_chart as the consumers of the returned symbol tells the agent what to do next. This is clear context with no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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