get_stock_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., price, volume, company details), whether it's real-time or delayed, if there are rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted language, and it fits well within the context of the tool's simplicity.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more context is needed to fully understand its use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'ticker' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on ticker formats, examples beyond those in the schema, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific Indonesian stock'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_historical_data' or 'get_stock_analysis' by focusing on current detailed info rather than historical data or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_available_stocks' or 'search_stocks', which might also provide stock information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_historical_data' for historical trends, 'get_stock_analysis' for deeper insights, or 'search_stocks' for broader searches. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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