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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. Beyond that the description usefully discloses the response contents (extremes plus their timestamps), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no data exists in the window.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences add return shape, use cases, and a doc pointer rather than padding. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming what comes back (min, max, per-extreme timestamps), so an agent can call it without guessing the payload. The remaining gap is doc-driven behavior around edge cases and the window grammar, which is deferred to an external section.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by pointing to the Time Window & Resolution documentation section for the `window` format, which the schema's terse example list does not explain. It does not restate the symbol/asset_id mutual exclusion, but that is fully documented in the schema.

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 and resource ('Get min/max price over a window') and spells out exactly what is returned: minimum, maximum, and the timestamps of each extreme. That return shape implicitly separates it from series-returning siblings like get_price_history and point-value siblings like get_price_at_time, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful for surfacing 24h highs/lows or computing period-over-period statistics' gives example use cases, so usage is implied rather than stated outright. It never says when to prefer this over get_price_history or get_price_at_time, which matters with 17 siblings in this family.

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