chart_scroll_to_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: SIDE EFFECTS: STATE_MUTATING (scrolls chart canvas), plus a LIMITATIONS note that historical data must exist. It stops short of permissions/auth context, but the mutation and precondition disclosure is meaningful for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses compact labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS). No sentence is redundant and the structure scans quickly.

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 single-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger scenarios, the state-mutating side effect, and a data-availability precondition. That is nearly everything an agent needs, with only the sibling-alternative boundary left implicit.

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 sole 'date' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including format (ISO string or unix timestamp as string). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Jump the chart viewport to center on a specific historical calendar date or timestamp.' The centering-on-a-historical-date behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like chart_set_visible_range and chart_get_visible_range.

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 WHEN TO USE section gives concrete triggering scenarios (navigating to a past release, news event, or breakout bar), which is strong positive guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., chart_set_visible_range) for viewport navigation, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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