getStockQuote

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it returns a 'current quote' but does not describe the response format, whether it includes fields beyond price, potential delays, authentication requirements, or any side effects. With no output schema, this lack of detail leaves the agent underinformed about what to expect.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one well-documented parameter, no annotations, no output schema). The description adequately states what it does, but without an output schema or any behavioral details, the agent cannot know the full set of fields returned by a 'quote' or handle edge cases. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'symbol' with an example ('AAPL') and a clear description. The tool description adds only the word 'stock,' which provides no substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get the current quote for a stock.' It uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (current quote), and the word 'current' distinguishes it from the sibling tool getHistoricalData. This is unambiguous and effective.

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 clear context that this tool is for current quote data, which implies a use case distinct from historical data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative getHistoricalData as a fallback. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion.

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