Yahoo quote summary (fundamentals / profile / statistics)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the endpoint is 'crumb-gated', indicating authentication needs, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a focused example. No wasted words; purpose and key usage details are front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (many optional modules) and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage with examples and module list. However, it omits mentioning default values for modules (though schema includes them) – a minor gap. Overall complete enough for an agent.

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% (both symbol and modules described). The description adds value by explaining modules as comma-separated, listing common ones, and providing an example, which aids the agent beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides 'per-symbol fundamentals' via the quoteSummary endpoint, listing common modules (e.g., price, financialData) and differentiating from sibling tools like yahoo_quote (simple quote) or yahoo_chart (history).

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 implies usage for fundamentals by mentioning 'Rich per-symbol fundamentals' and providing an example. It lists common modules but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the context from the sibling list and the tool's focus on fundamentals is sufficient.

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