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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: gaps are not interpolated, fixtures are explicit, and no live quote or exact post-time price is implied, which clarifies the exact nature of the data returned beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight the key parameters. No wasted words; it earns its length.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits parameter meanings, date range handling, pagination (cursor), and the limit's effect on 'bounded related posts'. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema patterns alone.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'series' and 'interval' but does not explain asset_id, date_from, date_to, limit, or cursor, nor does it describe the date format or pagination semantics. The description is insufficient to guide an agent on how to correctly fill the parameters without prior knowledge.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and defines the resource precisely as 'exact stored candles, price observations and bounded related posts' for one series and interval. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it is not a live quote tool and directs users to list_market_series for ID discovery, making its scope 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 tells the agent to use list_market_series to discover series IDs, which is a clear routing instruction. It also implies this tool is for historical stored data (not live) by stating 'no live quote', but does not explicitly mention alternative tools for live data or when to avoid this tool.

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