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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses behavioral traits like 'newest first' and 'limit capped at 500', but does not mention rate limits, data delays, or authentication requirements. These are useful but incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence with semicolons separating key details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only necessary constraints, with no wasted words.

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 simple data retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: timeframes, limit cap, and ordering. It omits details like the definition of 'recent' or error behaviors, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'timeframe' (enumerated values) and 'limit' (cap at 500), but does not explain 'symbol' beyond the schema name. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 the tool retrieves recent OHLCV candles, specifying the resource (OHLCV data) and the action (get). It also lists valid timeframes and constraints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_technical_indicators or get_stock_quote.

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 implies usage for fetching recent candle data but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives. No exclusions or sibling tool references are mentioned, so guidance is limited.

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