get_stock_snapshot

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output is a short spoken snapshot, grounded specifically in a 10-K filing, and includes a defined set of metrics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose and metric list front-loaded and the usage guidance in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately short for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: a short spoken financial snapshot with the named metrics grounded in the most recent 10-K. Given the low complexity, rich annotations, and single well-documented parameter, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single company parameter is well documented with examples. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining the company to a US public company with an SEC 10-K filing, which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent choose valid inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('give a short spoken financial snapshot'), a specific resource (US public company), and specific metrics (revenue, EPS, market cap, book value per share), grounding it in the most recent SEC 10-K filing. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_stock_metric by targeting broad questions rather than a single figure.

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 gives an explicit use case ('Use for a broad spoken question like "tell me about Apple's financials"') and an explicit negative case ('rather than one specific figure'). It does not directly name the sibling alternative, but the contrast with get_stock_metric is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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