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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: the data source (證交所基本市況報導) and an explicit latency caveat (盤中即時、可能略有延遲). It is silent on rate limits, auth, and the response shape, so it is helpful but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 dense sentence front-loads the category tag, the resource, and the returned items before the latency caveat and the code-specification note. No filler, though the bracketed theme/dividend tag is somewhat tangential to the quote function.

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 quote endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, the default behavior when codes are omitted, and the freshness caveat. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though return-format details are left unstated.

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% and there is a single optional param, so the schema already documents the codes array with an example. The description adds only that any TW code including 上櫃 and ETF is accepted, a marginal clarification over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (即時行情 for 台股) and enumerates the exact payload: 加權指數, 櫃買指數, 權值股, 熱門 ETF. This distinguishes it from the US-oriented siblings (get_us_quotes) and single-name tools (get_stock) by scoping to Taiwan market-wide quotes, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 is implied rather than stated: it notes you may specify any TW code (含上櫃、ETF) and that omitting codes returns the market overview, which functions as light 'when to use' context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to sibling tools like stocks__get_stock for individual company detail.

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