get_symbol_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network access are covered. The description adds that empty fields are omitted and that an error dict may be returned instead, which is useful return-behavior context, but says nothing about rate limits, partial failures, or unknown-symbol handling beyond 'error dict'.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource described before the Args/Returns blocks. The prose is telegraphic (a bare list of fields rather than a sentence), which is efficient but slightly less scannable.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format, the shape of the result (known fields only, or an error dict), and the domain of returned metadata. The missing piece is usage routing against the many sibling lookup tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter alone, and it does: it identifies the parameter as a Yahoo symbol and supplies a concrete format example ("ASML.AS"). It does not cover suffix/format edge cases (e.g. bare US tickers), so it falls short of a 5.

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 field list (name, exchange, currency, type, sector/industry, country) plus the Args/Returns structure makes clear this is a metadata lookup keyed by ticker. It separates itself implicitly from get_quote/get_price_history by returning static reference fields rather than prices, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus search_symbol, resolve_instrument, or get_quote, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the returned-field list.

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