Quotes

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

Adds rich behavioral detail beyond annotations: 8 in-flight calls, unknown symbols routed to errors list instead of failing the batch, and output order matching input order. No contradictions with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint.

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?

Dense and well-structured: batch limit, parallelism, error semantics, ordering guarantee, and an example are packed into a compact, readable block. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, the description supplies the missing operational details: concurrency model, failure handling for unknown symbols, and ordering guarantee. Nothing critical for correct invocation is omitted.

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 coverage, the description compensates well via the example and behavioral constraints: the symbols array order is preserved, unknown symbols are accepted and reported in errors, and the array is capped at 20. It does not formally define symbol format, but the example implies standard ticker symbols.

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?

Description clearly identifies a batch quote retrieval tool: 'Batch of quote() rows' with explicit limits and parallel fetch behavior. It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling 'quote' by being the batch variant.

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 batch/parallel framing and example make it clear this is for retrieving multiple quotes at once, and the 20-per-call limit with 'more raises' gives a concrete usage boundary. It does not explicitly say 'use quote for a single symbol' or list alternative conditions, so it stops just short of full explicitness.

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