Operating Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single concise phrase that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., specifying that it returns metrics for the given symbol).

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 tool has no output schema and annotations cover safety, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks details on what specific operating metrics are returned, which would improve completeness.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter, which is described as 'Security symbol, e.g. "700.HK"'. The description adds no further parameter context, so 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 'Get company operating metrics' uses a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'company' (general info) and 'financial_report' (financial statements) by focusing on operating metrics.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools cover similar financial data (e.g., 'profit_analysis', 'financial_report'), the agent is left without context for selection.

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