check_ticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return content but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and return values. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return formats, error handling, or operational constraints needed for reliable tool invocation in a trading context with sibling tools like 'send_order' and 'query_orders'.

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 description implies that either 'symbol' or 'cusip' can be used for lookup, which adds some semantic context beyond the bare schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't specify format requirements, mutual exclusivity, or examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Look up') and resource ('a symbol or CUSIP'), and specifies what information is returned ('full record, pending corporate actions, and affected open order count'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_ticker' or 'update_ticker', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'load_ticker' or 'update_ticker'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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