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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world access, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by warning that coverage varies by asset class (stocks/ETFs include OHLCV, crypto may only have close and volume) and that history is range-bounded — important for an agent interpreting results.

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 with zero filler; purpose is front-loaded and the asset-class caveat follows immediately. Every clause conveys information an agent can act on.

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 only two simple parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description needs chiefly to explain what comes back — which it does at a high level, absent an output schema. It stops short of stating units, adjustment basis (split/dividend), or ordering, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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% with a documented enum for range and an example-bearing symbol description, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's 'bounded' echoes rather than extends the range semantics, and adds nothing on symbol formats beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... daily price history for a symbol') and adds a scope qualifier ('bounded'). The 'daily' vs intraday distinction implicitly separates it from get_asset_intraday, but it does not name or differentiate against get_asset_series, which likely overlaps most closely.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'daily' points agents to this tool rather than the intraday sibling, and the range enum defines the bounded window. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as get_asset_series for longer histories.

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