symbol_overview

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the call aggregates multiple datasets into one dossier, but it does not discuss latency, freshness, payload size, or any limits for such a broad aggregation.

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 definition is just two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and wastes no words. The enumerated contents help the agent decide quickly without becoming verbose.

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 broad aggregate tool with no output schema, the description does a good job listing the categories of data returned and signalling that it is the starting point. It leaves some operational details unspecified, such as result freshness or latency, but covers what an agent needs to choose the tool.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it as a Persian symbol or insCode. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 framing ('One-call dossier for a symbol') and explicitly enumerates what the tool returns: identity, quote, order book, flow, shareholders, filings, and notices. This clearly distinguishes it from the many granular sibling tools such as quote, order_book, and codal_filings.

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?

'Start here' gives clear usage guidance that this is the entry-point overview tool rather than a targeted data retrieval tool. It does not explicitly name when to prefer granular siblings or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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