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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation with no open-world side effects. The description adds useful behavioral hints about historical access and output shape ('movement and 1-based positions'), but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or other operational details.

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 two-sentence structure is tight and front-loads the usage guidance. There is no wasted text, though the phrasing is slightly opaque in places.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It hints at output semantics but omits important context such as pagination (limit/cursor), response format, and how store, region, and context parameters affect behavior.

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 only 56%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like limit, cursor, context, response_format, and store. Instead, it gives almost no parameter-level guidance beyond the implied 'at' time behavior and does not clarify the undocumented fields.

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 frames the use case as needing 'a chart now or at a past time, with movement and 1-based positions,' which implies retrieval but does not state a clear verb or what kind of chart data is returned. It does distinguish the tool from listings_profile, which helps, but the core purpose remains somewhat vague.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('when you need a chart now or at a past time') and when not to use it ('Do not use for a listing across charts; use listings_profile'). The alternative is named directly, leaving little inference.

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