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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the upstream data source (Yahoo Finance), but says nothing about return shape (OHLCV series?), rate limits, auth needs, or how missing/delisted tickers are handled — significant gaps for a data-retrieval 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The second sentence justifies its place by hinting at use cases, though it could be more specific.

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 three fully documented params and two enums, the input side is covered; but there is no output schema and the description never hints at the return format an agent must reason about. Adequate but with a clear gap for a data-returning tool.

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%, so symbol, range and interval are already documented with defaults and enums in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g. interpretation of interval vs range interaction), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the price history of a stock, with the data source (Yahoo Finance) named. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_stock_price, which an agent could easily confuse with historical-vs-current pricing.

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?

"Utile pour tracer un graphique ou analyser la tendance" implies when to reach for this tool, but offers no explicit routing against siblings such as get_stock_price or analyze_stock, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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