get_sector_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns real-time quotes and specifies sector_type values. This adds some context but does not describe potential errors or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with a strategy, example, and args list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is needed: it explains the two parameters, usage strategy, and return type (sector list and real-time quotes). No gaps.

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%, but the description adds meaning by listing allowed values for sector_type ('industry/concept') and explaining the optional sector_name and its default behavior. This compensates for lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get sector list and real-time quotes', specifying the resource (sectors) and action (get quotes). It distinguishes from siblings like get_sector_constituent by focusing on quotes and listing. The strategy and example further clarify.

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 explicitly guides usage: 'Leave sector_name empty for all sectors; specify for a single sector.' It also provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to siblings, though the context is clear.

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