get_fast_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response is lightweight/quick, which is useful context but no detail on caching, rate limits, or latency trade-offs. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and separates Args/Returns/Example cleanly. The boilerplate headers are slightly verbose for one parameter but every line is relevant and nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. For a simple one-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is essentially complete; only sibling routing is under-specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the param, and it does: 'ticker: Stock ticker symbol'. For a single obvious identifier this is sufficient meaning, though it adds no format or exchange-suffix guidance.

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 specific verb+resource ('Get fast-access ticker information') and clarifies scope as 'lightweight, quick response' with recent price, market cap, and basic metrics. It implies differentiation from heavier siblings like get_complete_analysis, but never names an alternative, so the boundary between this and get_stock_price/get_stock_quote remains for the agent to infer.

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?

'Useful for quick price checks without full info loading' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many price-related siblings. The agent must guess when this beats get_stock_quote or get_complete_analysis.

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