Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the response fields (last_done, prev_close, etc.), which is useful output context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral caveats (e.g., empty records for padded symbols — that detail lives only in the schema). No contradictions with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and then lists the return fields. Every clause earns its place, and the field enumeration is compact yet informative. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description is close to sufficient. It compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating the response fields, though it omits the non-canonical-symbol empty-record behavior (present in the schema) and any rate-limit or symbol-limit expectations.

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 schema already documents both 'symbols' and '_jq' meaning. The description reinforces that quotes are keyed per symbol but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get latest price quotes') and even enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like option_quote or warrant_quote, but the generic scope ('per symbol') makes the scope clear enough; it just doesn't name alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for fetching the latest price quotes for given symbols, which tells the agent when it is appropriate. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer option_quote, warrant_quote, intraday, or depth, nor any exclusions, so the usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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