get_scheme_historical_nav_for_dates

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it is a historical data retrieval (implied read-only) and the return type, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 with clear sections for purpose, args, and returns. No extraneous words.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 string parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters with format, and return type. It is fairly complete, though lacks error handling notes.

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 0%, but the description adds format and examples for all three parameters (e.g., 'DD-MM-YYYY' for dates), significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema titles.

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 action (Get historical NAV) and resource (mutual fund scheme within a date range). The tool name 'for_dates' and description distinguish it from the sibling 'get_scheme_historical_nav' which likely returns all data.

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 implicitly suggests use when a date range is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives like 'get_scheme_historical_nav' or the other performance tools.

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