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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It states that this is a historical retrieve, that no account is required, that access is limited to weekdays from 1 July 2026 onward, and that the data is unmodified; this is more than a simple one-line getter. It does not mention result pagination or invalid-date behavior, but those are minor for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 compact and contains no wasted words. Every clause adds a concrete fact: what is replayed, the free/no-account property, and the availability window. It loses a point only as being a noun-phrase style rather than a clear sentence with an explicit verb.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what the tool returns, the timeframe it covers, and access requirements. It does not enumerate handling for weekends or missing dates in detail, but the availability statement covers the main cases.

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?

The input schema already provides strong coverage for the single date parameter, which is 100%, so the baseline is sufficient. The description adds a meaningful context by confirming the date refers to a past session, is date-limited from 1 July 2026, and applies to weekday trading dates.

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 identifies a specific resource: a past session's published morning levels, intraday recomputations, and the high/low they were graded against. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_todays_levels and likely get_graded_record, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 usable constraints: free, no account, weekday availability, and start date of 1 July 2026 onward. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_desk_record, get_graded_record, or get_todays_levels, so the routing guidance is implied rather than direct.

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