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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes the currency, which is useful beyond the schema, but it does not state data freshness (real-time vs delayed), market/exchange handling, or failure behavior for invalid tickers.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding or repetition. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little content to structure.

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 single-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers what is returned (current price plus currency). Freshness/quote-delay semantics are the only notable gap, and they are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

The single 'symbol' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, with examples like AAPL, MC.PA), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retourne le cours actuel d'une action') and adds the scope detail that the currency is included. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_price_history or get_valuation_metrics, though it does not name any of them explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_price_history or compare_stocks, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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