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

Goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing key data behaviors: prices are in USD, Adj Close column handling, corporate-action refresh caveats with a warning about split basis and reconciliation status, and the exclusion of zero-volume carry-forward candles. This is rich, non-obvious context that is crucial 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (fields, use cases, currency, adjustment behavior, caveats), though the cautionary sentences about corporate actions add complexity. No redundancy; a tight but information-dense description.

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 partially covers the return format by naming columns (OHLCV, Adj Close) and exclusions. It does not explicitly state the array structure or date range behavior beyond the schema, but the combination of schema and description is sufficiently complete for a read-only history tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 applies per guidelines for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly names the action ('Get') and the resource ('daily OHLCV price history for a stock'), with the data fields (Open, High, Low, Close, Volume) spelled out. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like GetLatestPrices or GetLiveQuote by focusing on historical daily data, and it mentions use cases (technical analysis, charting).

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?

Provides clear context by stating it is 'useful for technical analysis, charting, and price trend analysis,' and additionally flags that zero-volume candles are excluded, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the explicit exclusion/alternative criterion.

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