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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds substantive behavior: a hard 5-year-per-request cap and a 10-token cost, both of which affect call planning. It stops short of describing ordering, gaps for non-trading days, or what an over-long range returns.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource and the 5-year cap before the cost and timezone notes. The English and Japanese sentences convey the same information, which is useful for a Japan-market tool but is still duplicated content.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return content (OHLCV, adjusted series), limits, cost, and date timezone. Remaining gaps, such as row ordering or handling of non-trading days, are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries defaults and formats, making 3 the baseline. The description adds genuinely new meaning by stating that from/to are JST calendar dates, a timezone fact absent from the schema's own parameter text.

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 names a specific verb+resource: daily OHLCV history, raw and split-adjusted, scoped to a symbol and date range. It is clearly distinguishable from quote/technicals-style siblings by the 'daily history' and 'split-adjusted' phrasing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It provides real operating constraints (max 5 years per request, 10-token cost, JST date semantics) that imply how to call it, but never states when to choose this over get_quote, get_technicals, or get_market_cap_history, nor what to do when a range exceeds 5 years.

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