check_stock_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves current stock prices, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or what the tool returns (e.g., price format, timestamp, error responses). For a tool with one parameter but no structured documentation, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'stock symbol' as the input, which aligns with the single parameter in the schema, but doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's implied by the parameter name (e.g., format examples like 'AAPL' or 'GOOGL', validation rules, or what constitutes a valid symbol).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current price of a stock symbol'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_comprehensive_stock_data', which might offer more detailed information beyond just the current price.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'get_comprehensive_stock_data'. It lacks any context about alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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