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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond annotations — that a partial run object with only version/data is accepted — but says nothing about what is returned, whether requests are expensive/rate-limited, or what happens with invalid tickers or date ranges.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the minimal-input constraint; nothing is padded or redundant. It is arguably over-terse for a tool whose payload is a deeply nested strategy object, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool takes one parameter containing a very large nested schema (data, series, signals, money, simulation) with no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, so the description carries most of the burden — yet it never explains the return shape (price bars per ticker?), date-range semantics, or why series/signals/money/simulation exist on a price-fetching call. For this complexity, two sentences are not enough.

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% for the single top-level "run" property, so the schema alone only says "run is a required object". The sentence does add real meaning by revealing the minimal viable subset inside that object (version and data), which is not derivable from the required-field list. It still leaves data.tickers/start/end/source and the interval enum completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 ("Read historical prices") and ties it to the input shape ("for a run form"), so the agent can tell this is a data-retrieval tool rather than a computation or persistence one. It never distinguishes itself from the closest siblings (list_data, simulate, build_series), and "run form" is unexplained jargon, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

"Needs only version and data" is a concrete usage hint: it tells the agent it can submit a minimal run object instead of a fully specified strategy/simulation payload. However, the description gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and names none of the sibling alternatives (list_data, simulate, build_series), so usage must be inferred from the name.

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