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 identifies this as a retrieval operation ('Retrieve') and mentions the data granularity and trading volume, but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is a read-only operation, but the description is too generic to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the primary action. The first sentence is efficient, and the second adds context about the use case. The phrase 'using the Intraday 1-Minute Price Data API' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but it is not wasted words overall.

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 simple 3-parameter data retrieval tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its purpose and select it over siblings. It mentions the interval, the asset class, and the type of data (price and volume). It could be improved by describing the return format, but it is largely complete for this complexity level.

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 all three parameters (symbol, from, to) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 this tool retrieves 1-minute interval intraday data for stock indexes, using a specific API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getIndex5MinuteData and getIndex1HourData by explicitly naming the 1-minute interval, and from crypto/forex tools by specifying stock indexes.

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 gives clear context that this is for tracking short-term price movements and trading volume, which implies the appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use getIndex5MinuteData for less granular data' or 'not for daily data,' though the interval is clear from the name and description.

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