moex_history_by_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about the CSV fallback (save_csv/filename/max_inline_rows), inline-vs-file threshold, pagination, or response shape, all of which matter for a data-dump tool.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin rather than a virtue in itself.

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 7-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers only the core scope. It omits the CSV output behavior and inline-row threshold that the schema parameters imply, leaving the agent to reconstruct the tool's output contract from parameter descriptions alone.

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 71% with 7 parameters. The description meaningfully ties the 'режим' concept to the market/board pair via the OFZ example (market=bonds, board=TQOB), which the bare schema does not explain. It says nothing about date format or columns, which the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb+resource: trading results (Итоги торгов) for all securities of a mode on a single date. The phrase 'всех бумаг ... за одну дату' implicitly separates it from moex_history (per-security history) and moex_market_snapshot, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives one concrete worked example ('все ОФЗ: market=bonds, board=TQOB'), which shows an intended usage pattern and links the 'режим' concept to the market/board parameters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling history/quote tools.

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