get_stock_briefing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important runtime behaviors: null conditions for PER, ROE, and margin fields, plus cache-only execution and plan-level support. This rich context goes far beyond the annotations and clarifies edge cases.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, then the return contents, edge-case details, supported plans, and argument explanation. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy, making it both thorough and concise.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main return fields, null semantics, plan restrictions, code rules, and related briefing tools. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without requiring additional lookup.

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 provides only the parameter name and type with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining the code format: 'Stock code (5 digits, e.g. 27800; 4-digit codes match ordinary shares only).' This gives complete semantic meaning for the single parameter.

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 'One-page briefing for a single stock: price, financials, valuation, and margin,' clearly identifying the resource (a stock) and the deliverable (briefing). It distinguishes the tool by scope and explicitly references related siblings get_sector_briefing and get_market_briefing, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description states it works for 'All plans' and provides input format rules (5-digit codes, 4-digit for ordinary shares), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it only says 'See also' without explicit when-not-to-use instructions or direct comparisons to alternatives, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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