dfm_stock_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the quote is 'trimmed' (partial field set), data may be delayed, and no API key is required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by caveats. No wasted clauses, though 'trimmed' and '(no key)' are terse enough to be slightly ambiguous on first read.

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 fields need not be enumerated, and the delay/no-key caveats cover the main gotchas for a single-param read tool. Minor gap: no mention of currency or the fact that it returns only one security's snapshot vs a batch.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage (case-insensitivity, DFM ticker examples, near-match failure behavior), the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by ticker symbol' and adds nothing beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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: a live quote for one DFM-listed security, scoped to a single ticker. This implicitly separates it from dfm_list_securities (enumerate) and dfm_index (index-level), but it never names those siblings or states the distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite two obvious siblings (dfm_list_securities, dfm_index). The only usage-relevant note is the delay/investment-advice disclaimer, which is a caveat rather than routing guidance.

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