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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it explains the interval_multiplier example, default limit, window behavior, and the crucial crypto-equity ticker ambiguity (e.g., BTC and LINK examples). This prevents a serious mis-invocation, far exceeding minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is dense but avoids fluff, using semicolons and a distinct CRYPTO section to separate main purpose, usage triggers, and a critical warning. It remains scannable despite its length.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it defines what it returns, when to use it, how to handle ambiguous tickers, and the key param semantics. No critical gaps remain for agent decision-making.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description semantically covers all 7 parameters: interval/granularity, interval_multiplier (5-minute example), start_date/end_date window, default limit, and asset_class for crypto. It adds examples and catches edge cases that the bare schema cannot.

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 clearly states it returns 'Historical OHLCV bars for one ticker' with granularity options, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool for latest quotes. This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this when the user asks for price history, returns over a window, or intraday bars') and names the alternative ('for the latest quote use /fundamentals/price_snapshot'). The crypto handling instructions are also specific and actionable.

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