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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is 'authenticated, read-only inspection,' which aligns with annotations but does not provide additional behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, or response format. Given the annotations, the description adds some workflow context but falls short of enriching behavioral transparency.

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 only two sentences: the first clearly defines the purpose and constraints, and the second provides workflow context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what 'detailed recent bars' includes (e.g., OHLCV, volume, timestamps). It does not describe return values, error conditions for invalid symbols or run_id, or any pagination. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, read-only), this is a significant gap.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by noting that symbols are 'normally selected from scan_market.suggested_inspection' and that lookback 'defaults to 30 when omitted and is capped at 120,' offering practical usage guidance beyond the schema.

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 'Return detailed recent bars for 1–8 symbols at the current simulator time,' specifying the verb, resource, and constraints. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_market and submit_decision by indicating its role in the workflow.

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 explains that this tool 'follows scan_market and supplies focused data for submit_decision,' providing clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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