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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior beyond structure: the response envelope location (data.data.{symbol}), the forward vs backward application semantics (oldest-first vs newest-first), and the factor math. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-style 'get' tool the returned-data semantics are well covered.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the formula, then application semantics, then the alternative routing. Dense but each sentence adds information; the 'in the response envelope' phrasing is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics, and it does explain where factors appear and how to apply them. Combined with full schema coverage on the inputs, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though auth/safety context is absent.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., what 'type' or the time bounds do beyond the schema text), 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?

It states a specific verb and resource (get stock adjustment factors) and clarifies the concept with the formula adjusted = raw * factor_a + factor_b. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_kline and get_kline_latest, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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 clear routing guidance: 'For ordinary adjusted candles, use get_kline or get_kline_latest with adjust instead,' which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating explicitly when this tool IS the right choice, but the contrast makes the intended use inferable.

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