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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses several behavioral details: output format (CSV), row ordering (most recent last), default window (50 days), pagination via offset with a note about how to page further back, and the fallback to JSON candidates for ambiguous input. These are substantial and actionable.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with the purpose, then covers return format, default behavior, pagination, and ambiguity handling in separate clauses. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a thorough job of setting expectations: CSV format, one row per day, most recent last, default limit, pagination mechanism, and ambiguity resolution. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further guessing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical context: the default of 50 trading days aligns with the limit default, and it explains how offset enables paging. It also clarifies the ordering (most recent last) which interacts with limit/offset. This goes slightly beyond the schema's parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('pre-computed daily technicals'), listing concrete components (moving averages, relative-strength rating, 52-week range, volume anomalies). It explicitly covers both CSE stocks and indices, calling itself 'one tool for both,' which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ohlc_data or get_index_data.

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 clearly states the tool's coverage (stocks or indices) and that it returns technicals rather than raw data, which implies it is the right choice when those specific metrics are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_ohlc_data for raw price data) or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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