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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the per-print nature, required date constraints, max range error behavior, data availability start date, and cache duration. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or describe the output size/format beyond field listings, though the field listing and summary mention provide good context.

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 relatively compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It packs constraints, coverage start, and cache info into a few sentences. However, it is somewhat dense with many clauses in one sentence; could be slightly better structured but is mostly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (executed_at, price, size, premium, market center, NBBO) and summary totals. It also covers key constraints (date requirement, max range, cache). Gaps: no explicit explanation of min_premium semantics, no pagination behavior beyond default limit, and no details on how the 5-min cache affects data freshness, but overall it is reasonably complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 17% (ticker is documented), but the description explains date/start/end requirements and mentions limit 1000 default implicitly? no. It does not explain parameters like min_premium or limit's exact behavior. The description adds value by specifying required date semantics and the max 7-day window, but leaves min_premium unexplained and does not describe the limit parameter beyond the schema's default/max.

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 this tool returns historical dark-pool prints for one ticker, using a specific verb ('Call to find') and resource ('per-print warehouse capture'). It distinguishes itself from the live /intel/darkpool tool by explicitly positioning itself as the historical counterpart, which helps differentiate it among the many sibling tools.

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 description provides explicit usage conditions: REQUIRES date OR start(+end), max 7 days per request (422 otherwise), coverage begins 2026-05-10, and 5-min cache. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use it, including error cases and constraints. It also names the related live tool, providing alternative context.

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