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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: 'Data result first', the presentation behavior of research_show_price with local replay and A/B selection, the rule not to add every metric by default, and the note that raw rows are widget-only until retrieved. This discloses the output/consumption model that annotations do not.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'Use this when' line and organized under clear labels (Selection, Presentation, Evidence). It is somewhat long and the dense Evidence paths paragraph (/candles/rows, /catalogue/datasets, /indicators/items) is more procedural than essential, keeping it below a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still covers routing, selection constraints, and presentation behavior comprehensively. Remaining density in the Evidence section prevents a top score but nothing an agent needs to call it 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%, so all three parameters (including the nested window and the timeframe enum) are already documented in the schema. The Selection paragraph largely restates what the schema says ('end is exclusive', 'Reuse the requested candle interval', 'Resolve ambiguous dates first'), adding emphasis but little new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('opening an asset's native price chart and historical replay') with the scope of the action ('for a specified interval') and an example. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (research_read_series), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with 'Use this when...' and immediately provides exclusions: 'Do not use for adding a metric to an already-selected chart (research_read_series), automatic interpretation, or a live execution quote.' This gives explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative tool by name.

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