get_multiple_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool 'gets' data and returns a dictionary, implying a safe read operation, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or partial failures. The return type is also already covered by the output schema, so the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the example aids understanding without redundancy.

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 one-parameter batch-quote tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. It lacks potential limit or fallback details, but the core usage is adequately specified. Given the sibling list, a brief pointer to get_stock_info for detailed single-stock info would improve completeness.

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 only defines 'symbols' as an array of strings with no description. The description compensates by explaining these are stock ticker symbols and gives a concrete example (['AAPL','GOOGL','MSFT']), making the parameter fully clear.

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 opens with 'Get current quotes for multiple stocks at once' – a clear verb+object+scope. The 'multiple' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_info and get_historical_data.

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 a batch use case ('at once') but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over single-symbol tools or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on alternatives, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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