StockPrice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves data, implying a read operation, but does not explain return format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence, 'Yahoo Finance から株価情報を取得します。' It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant information. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal space.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a very minimal input schema. The description does not compensate for this by explaining what the returned data looks like, how to format the symbol, or any limitations. It fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'symbol' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'symbol' represents a stock ticker from the tool name. This minimal inference is insufficient for proper parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's function: it retrieves stock price information from Yahoo Finance. The verb '取得します' (retrieves) and the resource '株価情報' (stock price information) are specific and unambiguous. Since there are no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or under what circumstances. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. There are no sibling tools, but the absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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