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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns only essential fields (date, price, volume) and is simplified, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or response format beyond the field list, leaving some ambiguity for agent decision-making.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second adds data content and use cases. No wasted words, well-structured and scannable.

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 data-retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It states what data is returned and typical use cases. Lacking an output schema, it still covers the main fields. It does not explicitly mention daily vs. intraday granularity, but 'simplified' and 'minimal' imply daily bars, making this acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides; it only references the general data fields returned, not how parameters affect the response.

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 the tool accesses simplified stock chart data, specifying the data fields (date, price, trading volume) and the minimal nature of the data. It distinguishes from siblings like getFullChart by emphasizing 'simplified' and 'basic', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear intended use cases: 'ideal for tracking stock performance with minimal data and creating basic price and volume charts.' It implies when to use this tool over fuller alternatives, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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