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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it accesses historical market cap data and helps track changes; it does not disclose the response format, pagination/limit behavior, date range handling, or that it is a read-only operation. This leaves key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief use-case statement. It is concise with no unnecessary filler, though the second sentence is somewhat generic.

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 and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response contains and how the tool behaves. It does not mention return fields, output structure, default limit values, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for symbol, from, to, and limit, so the schema already explains parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 that the tool accesses historical market capitalization data for a company, specifying the resource and the historical scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from current-market-cap tools like getMarketCap by emphasizing 'historical' and 'changes in market value over time', though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 implies the tool is for tracking market value changes over time and long-term assessments, which suggests when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, relying on the word 'historical' to differentiate from peers.

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