stock_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Gets'), but fails to mention potential issues like rate limits, data freshness, or error handling (e.g., invalid symbol).

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 concise at two lines with no redundant information. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points or separation of parameter info) to improve readability.

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 covers the tool's core function but lacks detail about what specific fundamentals are returned. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to list all fields, but a summary of typical data (e.g., financials, ratios) would improve completeness.

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 description explains the single parameter 'symbol' with an example ('AAPL'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definition. Given 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective.

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 states 'Gets detailed company information and fundamentals,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving company data. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'basic_profile' or 'security_profile' that likely serve similar functions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent has no context to differentiate it from the many sibling tools.

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