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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what analysis metrics are computed (period high/low, price change, volatility), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or response format, but the output schema covers return values. The description adds value without contradicting annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get historical price data') and then lists key features. It is efficient and free of filler, though it is a bit dense. It could be split into two sentences for readability, but it remains concise and structured well enough 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?

For a read-only tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and expected outputs. It mentions the customizable timeframe and the specific metrics, which gives the agent a solid understanding of what to expect. It does not detail parameter constraints (covered by schema) or error conditions, but those are not required given the completeness of the schema and annotations. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% — every parameter (symbol, days, interval) has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'customizable timeframe' via the days parameter. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance the parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('historical price data'), and explicitly lists the analysis outputs (period high/low, price change percentage, volatility metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis-candlestick (which would focus on price candles) and analysis-technical (which would cover technical indicators). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 for historical trend analysis over a customizable timeframe, which is clear enough context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for real-time data or technical indicators). With siblings like analysis-technical and price-get, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap, but the intent is inferable from the description.

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