Stock or index quote

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description then adds concrete output-shape behavior for two input classes (stock fields vs index fields), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It omits freshness/currency and any rate-limit or coverage notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the stock case is front-loaded ahead of the index case. The dense comma-separated field list is efficient rather than padded, though it reads as an inventory rather than a prioritized summary.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields for both modes, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. What remains missing — data freshness, units/currency, and how it differs from get_index — is minor for a single-parameter lookup but not immaterial.

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%, so the symbol parameter is already fully documented, including example formats. The description echoes the stock/index distinction the schema already makes and adds no new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear resource (quote) and enumerates exactly what is returned for stocks versus indices, which is more than a restated title. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_index, which appears to overlap on index quotes, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool covers both NSE stocks and index names, and the two-part sentence hints at when each branch applies. But there is no explicit guidance on preferring this over get_index, get_price_history, or get_market_overview, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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