sell_stock

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral disclosure. It does not state effects (e.g., removing stock from portfolio), requirements (e.g., ownership), or return values. The phrase 'sell' implies a transaction but nothing further.

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 a single sentence, making it brief, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to deliver essential information, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue.

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?

With two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance in the description, the tool is drastically incomplete. An agent would lack sufficient context to invoke it correctly or interpret results.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'stock' and 'qty'. The schema provides only types and requiredness; the description must compensate but does not explain what a stock identifier is or whether qty is integer/fractional, etc.

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 'Sell a stock' clearly states a specific action (verb) and resource (stock), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling buy_stock, but the opposite meaning is evident from the name, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'Sell a stock' with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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