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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond them: how one-session change is omitted under specific conditions, how MIC:TICKER rows compare with the previous traded close (with a 12-day threshold), and that split-limited or partial 52-week ranges are marked. This is substantial context for correct interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently layers in essential caveats about change omission, MIC:TICKER behavior, and split-limited ranges. Every sentence adds value, and the final differentiator is clear and concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (one-session change, volume, 52-week range) and edge cases. It covers all necessary information for an agent to call and interpret 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 100%, so the sole parameter 'tickers' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get each ticker's newest traded, settled daily close') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 'This is settled history, not an intraday quote,' which differentiates it from tools like GetLiveQuote.

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 clear usage context: use it for settled history, not intraday quotes, and it explains that rows can have different dates so 'use the Date column.' However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g., GetLiveQuote) for intraday needs, so it falls short of explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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