get_stock_quote

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

Annotations already establish that the call is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the price is delayed rather than real-time. This informs agent expectations beyond the structured hints.

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 sentence that immediately states the action, the object, the delivery latency, and the market scope. There is no filler, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema with complete explanation, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, this description is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description and examples like RELIANCE.NS, INFY.NS, TCS.BO. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('current (delayed) price and summary for a given Indian stock ticker'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling get_stock_history by emphasizing current/delayed quote retrieval.

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 phrase 'current (delayed)' clearly signals this tool is for current quote lookups, not historical analysis, which is enough context given the sibling get_stock_history. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this for current prices and get_stock_history for historical trends.'

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