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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns prices, change percent, volume, market cap, and sector, and supports filtering/sorting. It does not go deeper into behavior like default limits or error handling, but with annotations covering the key aspects, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and capabilities without any waste. It earns its place by being informative yet compact.

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?

Given the complete parameter schema, clear annotations, and a straightforward list-retrieval use case, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention pagination or result format, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. The description covers the essentials well.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter thoroughly described (exchange enum values, limit default, sort options). The description only echoes 'filtering and sorting' without adding details beyond the schema, so it provides no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('stocks on a specific African exchange') and lists the data fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_african_exchange_movers or get_ngx_all_stocks, but the focus on exchange-specific stocks makes the purpose clear enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_african_exchange_movers, get_african_indices, and get_ngx_all_stocks overlap in scope, but the description does not mention any exclusions or preferred use cases. The only implication is that it is for listing stocks per exchange, which is weak guidance.

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