google_finance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only lookup operation. While it does not detail rate limits or authentication, the behavior is straightforward and non-destructive. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for omitted return details.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a list of sample prompts and an args section. Every part adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter formatting, and examples. It does not discuss error handling or data freshness, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines the 'query' parameter with format ('Stock ticker with exchange') and examples (e.g., 'AAPL:NASDAQ'), and allows company names. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('look up') and the resource ('stock prices, market data, and company information') on Google Finance. Sample prompts reinforce the purpose and distinguish it from sibling tools like google_search, which are for general web searches.

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 through sample prompts (e.g., 'What's Apple's stock price?'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_search. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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