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

No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, rate limits, or required permissions. The description carries the full burden for transparency and fails entirely, leaving the agent without any behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (6 words) but at the expense of necessary information. It is under-specified, not earning its place as a helpful guide. A longer, more informative description would be justified.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, symbol format, days range, or any usage constraints. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The description only adds 'venue symbol' nuance to the 'symbol' parameter but does not explain 'days' (default 30) or any format requirements. This is insufficient to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Daily OHLCV candles for a venue symbol' implies retrieval of price data, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It is somewhat clear but does not differentiate from siblings like 'history' or 'macro' which may also provide historical data. A more specific verb and scope would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'history', 'search'), the description offers no context for selection. The agent is left to infer usage without any criteria.

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