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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-first, and the date bounds are optional. It does not describe return format or pagination, but with an output schema present, this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the resource, ordering, and filtering without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it immediately 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (4 params, output schema present, annotations present), the description covers the essential information: what data is returned, in what order, and how to optionally bound it. It could theoretically mention the limit, but that is already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats ticker and date_from/date_to but adds no meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates that they bound the results. This is the baseline score for full schema coverage with no added parameter insight.

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 states it returns 'Daily OHLCV bars for a ticker, newest first' with optional date bounding. This precisely identifies the resource (daily OHLCV bars), the subject (a ticker), and the ordering, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like snacs_quote_get or snacs_snapshot_get.

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 clearly implies a read-only retrieval tool for historical daily price data, and the date-range clause suggests usage for bounded time windows. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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