fq_get_basic_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns the listed fields, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, authentication) are disclosed, but the safety profile is covered by 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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's output. No extraneous words, and it is front-loaded with the key information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 one simple parameter and an output schema, the description covers the output fields adequately but lacks parameter guidance. For a straightforward tool, this is acceptable but not complete—agents need to infer parameter usage from the name 'tickers' alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'tickers'. It does not explain the format (e.g., comma-separated, single ticker, case sensitivity) or provide examples. The description focuses on output fields, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 lists the specific data fields returned (company name, exchange, sector, ICB classification) and the verb 'get' indicates retrieval. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact fields, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like fq_ticker_info or fq_get_equity_snapshot.

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 usage when one needs the listed fields, but provides no explicit context on when to prefer this tool over siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Agents must infer usage from the field listing.

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