ads_symbol_info

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

readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already establish this as a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the field-level content (flags like READONLY, PERSISTENT), which is useful context, but says nothing about needing an active ADS connection or behavior on unknown symbols.

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 tight sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but that costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the connection prerequisite and the required format of the symbol identifier, both of which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter is undocumented. 'of one symbol' implies the argument identifies a single symbol rather than a pattern, which adds marginal meaning, but no symbol-path syntax (e.g. qualified path) is given.

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 names a specific resource (one symbol) and enumerates the exact metadata returned (type, size, index group/offset, flags, comment), which separates it from ads_list_symbols (listing) and ads_read (values). It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun-phrase form is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many alternatives in this large sibling set (ads_list_symbols, ads_leaves, ads_types, ads_read). The agent must infer that this is for a single symbol's metadata.

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