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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't: data is recent but the warehouse lags on it, and the asset format determines which market is queried. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination detail is given, but limit is documented in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then parameter guidance, then the sibling alternative. The opening phrase 'the warehouse lags on' is slightly awkward but carries real freshness information rather than 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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% parameter description coverage, the description only needs to add routing and freshness context — which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the cross-parameter interaction (asset format determines the market queried) and by prescribing a concrete data_type value for the common stock/currency/commodity case.

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 names the exact resource and its scope (quotes, OHLCV, company profiles, FX, commodities) and explicitly routes the agent away from search_company_filings for financial statements. An agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the 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?

It gives concrete selection guidance ('Set data_type to price_history for stocks, currency pairs, and commodities') and names an alternative tool with the condition that selects it. It stops short of explaining when to prefer the other data_type values (quote vs company_profile vs symbol_search) or when not to call this tool.

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