get_stock_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool returns a dictionary, without disclosing data freshness, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal transparency for an information retrieval tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clean and every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or irrelevant details.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what it returns. However, it could be more explicit about the full set of 'key metrics' and how this tool differs from siblings like get_financials, so an agent might not fully understand scope.

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 provides no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining the parameter's meaning and providing examples ('AAPL', 'GOOGL'). This gives the agent clear guidance on what to pass.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('basic stock information'), with explicit examples of included data (current price, market cap, key metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_historical_data or get_financials, which cover more specific 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 word 'basic' suggests a contrast with more specialized sibling tools, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when-not-to-use or name other tools, so usage context is only implied.

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