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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'leakage-safe' and 'priced per call,' which are useful traits, but it never describes the actual operation, return format, or any edge cases. The disclosure is too thin.

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?

At 9 words, the description is brief, but the brevity is under-specification, not effective conciseness. The first sentence is an incomplete fragment, and the second sentence on pricing adds little structural value. It is too short to be useful.

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?

With 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It hints at leakage safety and pricing but omits core information about required inputs and the matrix structure, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 4 parameters (symbol, tf, start, end) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any of these parameters or how they relate to the feature matrix. It completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 is a noun phrase ('Documented leakage-safe feature matrix rows') with no explicit verb, so it doesn't clearly state the action. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing feature matrix rows, but relies on the tool name to imply retrieval. This is a moderate clarity level.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_bars or get_fundamentals. The only additional statement, 'Priced per call,' is a cost note, not usage guidance. It offers no timing, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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