get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does so by explaining the critical constraint that the symbol must be a native Yahoo ticker and must not be constructed from an ISIN, and it clarifies the required fallback to the search tool. This is meaningful behavioral context that goes beyond a simple 'get data' statement. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but that is not essential for this simple 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 compact: one sentence for purpose and a few lines for the symbol constraint. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately follows with actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is entirely adequate. It states what the tool returns, explains the critical input requirement, and tells the agent how to proceed if the input is not a native ticker. No important context is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the symbol parameter, including examples (AAPL, SAP.DE), exclusions, and the instruction to call search first. The tool description repeats the same information without adding any new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: 'Get the current price and key intraday figures for a Yahoo symbol.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the singular 'a Yahoo symbol' indicates it is for one quote, distinguishing it from the sibling get_quotes tool which likely handles multiple symbols.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the search tool first ('If you only have a name or ISIN, call the search tool first'), and clearly states what is not acceptable (never an ISIN, WKN, or company name). It does not mention when to use get_quotes instead, but the search-workflow instruction is a valuable conditional use case.

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