quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Does not create a table' does disclose the absence of a persistent side effect on the table catalog, but it says nothing about read-only guarantees, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the field list immediately following. The trailing 'Does not create a table' is slightly oblique but does earn its place as a disambiguation hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a single required parameter keeps the surface small. The only real gap is the absence of a symbol format example (e.g., a ticker like 'OGDC').

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 coverage is 0% (the lone 'Symbol' field has no description), so the description is the only source of meaning. It clarifies the parameter is a single PSX ticker, which adds value, but supplies no format or example.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Get the latest snapshot for one PSX symbol') and enumerates the returned fields (price, sector, market cap, P/E, dividend yield, 1-year change). This clearly distinguishes it from table-materializing siblings like load_prices and load_fundamentals, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

'Does not create a table' implicitly signals this is a lightweight point lookup rather than a load_* materialization, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling statement or exclusion guidance.

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