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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorldHint=false. The description still earns credit by disclosing the as_of clipping rule that prevents look-ahead bias and the 5000-row page ceiling. It loses a point for referencing next_cursor, which does not appear in the schema, leaving the agent unsure how to actually page.

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 dense sentences, both front-loaded: the core behavior first, then the operational constraint (pagination). No 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?

For a 5-param data tool with no output schema, the description should sketch the returned shape and tighten parameter formats. It also promises a next_cursor parameter the schema omits and says 'daily' where intraday bars are supported, leaving small but real ambiguities.

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 only 40%, and the description adds real meaning for as_of (default today, prevents future leakage), but start and end get no format or inclusivity guidance and symbols/bar are only touched on via the mismatched 'daily' wording. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema lands at the baseline.

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 and resource (returns OHLCV bars) plus scope (symbols between start and end, point-in-time clipped). The word 'daily' is slightly at odds with the schema's intraday bar options, so an agent wanting 1m/1h bars gets a mildly misleading signal, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explains pagination mechanics (5000-row page, next_cursor) and implies fitting into a point-in-time workflow, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like get_fundamentals_pit, get_crypto, or get_futures that likely also surface price data.

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