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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return granularity (daily closing prices) and scope (one asset, calendar year), but omits auth requirements, rate limits, adjustment details, and response format specifics. It partially compensates but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does and its intended use. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description conveys the returned data type and scope well. Edge cases like missing trading days or price adjustments are not covered, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 100%, and the schema fully documents both the ticker and year parameters. The description adds no meaningful syntax, format, or constraint details beyond loosely mapping to 'one asset' and 'calendar year', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource and scope clearly: 'Daily closing prices for one asset over a calendar year'. This is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like find_assets or backtest_strategy.

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?

The phrase 'for checking a rule's premise against what actually happened' gives a clear usage context against a rule-verification workflow. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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