get_symbol_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the return format (JSON with availability, related symbols, renderability) but omits any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation, the description is insufficiently transparent.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It is logically structured: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers what the tool does and its return structure. Missing elements like error handling or preconditions are minor for this context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds meaningful context: it defines the parameter as 'Exact SF Symbol name' and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'star.fill'). This goes beyond the minimal schema and compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could include validation constraints.

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 it retrieves information about a specific SF Symbol, with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific SF Symbol'). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list_symbols (listing many) and search_symbols (searching) by focusing on a single symbol.

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 implies usage when you have a specific symbol name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Sibling names are provided but not discussed.

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