get_watchlist_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the real-time nature and the comma-separated multiple-symbol format. Since this is a read-only lookup, there are no destructive side effects to disclose; error handling and response fields are covered by the output schema.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It states the purpose and gives the exact input format and an example with no unnecessary words.

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 tool is operationally simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is available. The description covers the only real ambiguity—how to format symbol lists—so the agent has enough to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter 'symbols' had almost no meaning beyond being a string. The description fully compensates by explaining the comma-separated format and providing the 'AAPL,NVDA,MU' example, which is exactly the semantic an agent needs.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time quotes for multiple symbols'), and even supplies a comma-separated example. This immediately differentiates it from the close sibling get_single_quote, which is for a single quote.

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 clearly communicates the use case: retrieving multiple quotes in one call. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or compare it to get_single_quote, but the symbol-format context is strong enough that an agent can infer the right selection.

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