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 description does not need to repeat safety. It adds 'delayed or entitled realtime' which hints at entitlement/permission requirements, but does not explain rate limits, symbol-not-found behavior, or authentication nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the return fields. No wasted words; every clause adds meaning.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a read-only quote tool: it names the key fields returned and implies exact-symbol usage. However, it omits details about limit behavior, multi-symbol handling, and error cases (e.g., invalid symbol). Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it could be more thorough.

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 only 33% (only 'symbols' has a description; 'limit' and 'exchange' have none). The tool description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'limit' controls or how 'exchange' disambiguates symbols. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'market quotes', and lists the specific data fields returned (price, session move, volume, market state, source timestamp). It is distinct from siblings like market.history or market.search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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 mentions 'exact symbols' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus market.search (for symbol discovery) or market.history (for historical data). There is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing, so the agent must infer usage context from the resource name.

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