get_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: per-symbol independent lookup and the partial-failure semantics that symbols with no data land in 'not_found' instead of aborting the whole call. It does not mention rate limits or the 50-symbol truncation behavior (that lives in the schema), but the error-handling disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Opens with the core action, then usage, then per-symbol behavior and failure handling. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler, and the most important scoping detail is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need only summary treatment, yet the description still names the key fields and explains the not_found edge case. Combined with the fully covered parameter schema and read-only/open-world annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'symbols' parameter already documents tickers/ISINs, the exclusion of company names, and the 50-item cap. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the sentences about return fields are output, not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get compact current quotes') plus an explicit scope ('for several Yahoo symbols in one call'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_quote. An agent can tell what it returns and that it is the batch variant without opening either schema.

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 sentence 'Use this to compare or fetch prices for multiple tickers at once' gives clear usage context that implicitly separates it from get_quote for a single ticker. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating an explicit when-not condition, so it falls just below the top band.

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