Stock Quote

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns the 'current/latest' quote and lists the metrics, which is slightly more context. However, it does not reveal data freshness, market-hours behavior, or contrast with get_live_quote; the addition is useful but not deep enough to exceed a 3.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and concise. The 'AFTER using this tool' paragraph is an extra block of workflow guidance, which is useful but not strictly about the tool's own behavior; it is clearly labeled and not excessive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 quote tool with no output schema, listing the fields helps, and annotations cover safety. But given the presence of get_live_quote as a sibling, the description does not disambiguate real-time vs snapshot data, and it omits error or market-hours context, leaving an agent uncertain in edge cases.

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 100%; the schema already describes symbol and the ticker/identifier aliases. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pair ('Get the current/latest stock price quote') and enumerates the data fields returned (LTP, change, %, volume, market cap, PE, PB, 52-week high/low). It also explicitly names the sibling get_batch_quotes for the multi-stock case, distinguishing the tool's scope. This exceeds the clear-purpose bar.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not: 'For multiple stocks, use get_batch_quotes instead.' It also provides post-call guidance (suggest watchlist, deeper analysis, portfolio update) that directs subsequent tool choices. That's concrete, practical usage guidance beyond the bare minimum.

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