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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Daily closes + range change' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on invalid symbols, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 short (6 words), which is concise, but it lacks structure and omits critical information. Every word could earn its place if it were more informative, but currently it is under-specified.

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 no output schema, annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description does not explain return format, pagination, or example usage. It is incomplete for an agent to understand what to expect or how to handle responses.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'symbol' implicitly but does not explain the 'days' parameter (default 30, meaning unclear). The description adds no semantic detail beyond what is inferrable from the name 'history'.

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 closes + range change for a symbol' gives a vague idea of output but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve'). It does not differentiate from the sibling 'candles' which likely provides similar price data, so purpose is ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between history and siblings like 'candles' or 'context'.

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