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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). It does not mention pagination, response format, timezone defaults, or other nuances. The annotations cover the safety profile, so this is not a contradiction, but the description is silent on additional behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly 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?

For a simple data retrieval tool with strong annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the response structure beyond 'OHLCV', which could be considered a gap. Still, the tool is straightforward and the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level details; the schema is the primary source. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('futures candlestick/OHLCV data'), which distinguishes it from other candlestick tools for spot, options, and DC markets. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used for futures candlestick data, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like spot or options candlesticks. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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