stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: the data is end-of-day rather than real-time, covers both TWSE and TPEx, and includes P/E and dividend yield in the result. It does not say what happens on an unknown code, an ambiguous name, or a suspended/delisted stock, which matters for a lookup keyed on a free-text query.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the non-real-time caveat. The bilingual duplication is deliberate for a Chinese/English audience and adds no new claims, so it is acceptable rather than wasteful.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (quote, P/E, yield), the exchanges covered, and the freshness limitation. The remaining gap is ambiguity/error behavior for the free-text query, which is a modest omission rather than a blocker.

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% and the single 'query' property is an undescribed string, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by stating the query accepts either a stock code or a stock name, which is the essential semantic, but it gives no format guidance (numeric code vs. exchange suffix vs. Chinese short name) or handling of multiple matches.

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 names a specific verb and resource: look up a single stock's end-of-day quote by code or name, returning price, P/E ratio and dividend yield, scoped to TWSE/TPEx. That is clearly distinct from stock_market_summary and stock_dividends in substance, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the per-stock lookup tool rather than a market-wide one, and the '非即時／not real-time' note usefully warns against expecting live prices. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over stock_market_summary or stock_dividends, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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