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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about default interval/limit behavior, result ordering, or what happens when limit exceeds the maximum of 500 — so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, no filler: the resource and its expansion come first, then the use cases. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, a fully described parameter set, and complete annotations, the description only needs to establish purpose, which it does. The one small gap is that it gives no hint of sibling routing for related price or indicator queries, but nothing required to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, with symbol, interval (enum with defaults), and limit (1–500, default 100) all documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about symbol format or interval semantics that the schema does not already carry.

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 specific verb and resource — retrieve OHLCV candle data for a crypto futures symbol — and spells out what OHLCV means, so an agent knows exactly what kind of payload to expect. It is clearly distinct in kind from siblings like get_price or get_technical_indicators, though it never explicitly names them to reinforce the boundary.

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?

It offers implicit usage context ('charting, price history, and technical analysis') but gives no when-to-use versus when-not rules and does not point to get_price or get_technical_indicators as alternatives for related needs. An agent can infer a use case but must decide on its own when this beats a sibling.

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