webquik_get_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, snapshot-vs-streaming semantics, or what happens when depth exceeds available levels.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the example placed inline where it is most useful. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 not be described, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage the description leaves 'depth' entirely undocumented and says nothing about read-only safety or error conditions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It illustrates class_code and sec_code with concrete example values, which adds some meaning, but the 'depth' parameter is never mentioned and no units, limits, or defaults are explained.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Get order book quotes for an instrument', and the parenthetical example with class_code=TQBR, sec_code=SBER makes the target unambiguous. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings like webquik_get_security_info or webquik_get_trades, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools (e.g. get_security_info) that an agent might confuse with this one. The example clarifies input format but not tool selection.

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