get_locate_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data (read-only), but it does not mention any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, required permissions, or handling of invalid symbols. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic read operation, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information. This is an example of efficient writing.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema available, so the description covers the essential purpose and invocation. The main gap is not differentiating from similar sibling tools like 'get_locates', but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'symbols' parameter already described as a comma-separated list with a max of 100 unique symbols. The description merely repeats this ('Provide a comma-separated list of symbols'), adding no new semantic meaning. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Returns locate availability and pricing for one or more symbols.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies a distinct resource ('locate availability and pricing'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stock_quotes or get_locates. The scope is explicit, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when you need locate quotes for symbols) and gives input instructions ('Provide a comma-separated list of symbols'). However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as explaining the difference between this tool and the similar 'get_locates' or 'get_locate' siblings. Usage context is clear but not differentiated.

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