get_52week_low

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or how many stocks are returned. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to cover missing details without becoming verbose.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose but does not explain the return format, update frequency, or any filtering criteria. This is a simple tool, but more completeness would help an agent.

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 tool has no parameters (0 params), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. However, it could optionally describe the output format, but baseline 4 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'stocks at 52-week low on NSE', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_52week_high' or 'get_top_losers'. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools and could be more specific about the output.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_52week_high' or 'get_top_gainers'. The description provides no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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