get_stock_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only lookup and documents input constraints like 'up to 200' and 'No market prefix,' but it does not mention error handling, rate limits, authorization requirements, or what happens with invalid symbols.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by a focused parameter explanation with examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant filler.

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?

The single required parameter is thoroughly documented and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. The main gap is the lack of guidance on edge cases or failures, but for a simple lookup tool this is a minor omission.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the symbols parameter: comma-separated tickers, up to 200, no market prefix, and concrete examples including '005930' and '005930,AAPL.' This goes far beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 and resource: 'Look up basic info (name, market, currency, status, shares outstanding...) for symbols.' This clearly identifies the tool as a reference-data lookup and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_current_price or get_orderbook.

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 for retrieving static basic stock information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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