get_stock_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior for invalid symbols, whether prefixed symbols are rejected or stripped, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. Transparency is minimal.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a clearly formatted Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the key input constraints are easy to scan.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description provides a solid invocation contract: what the tool returns at a high level, how to format symbols, the maximum count, and the no-prefix rule. It lacks usage alternatives and behavioral caveats, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 documents the sole parameter: comma-separated symbols, up to 200, no market prefix, with concrete examples. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare string schema and is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 clear action ('Look up') and resource ('basic info... for symbols') and enumerates the kind of data returned: name, market, currency, status, shares outstanding. The field list and KRX/AAPL examples make the tool's scope distinguishable from pricing or financial-statement siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_company_profile, get_current_price, or search_company. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative-tool pointers. The 'Args' block explains input format but does not help an agent select between similar-looking tools.

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