get_historical_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid-tier gate, the exchange-imposed lookback cap on minute intervals versus day candles, and the practical consequence of large ranges. It omits error behavior and whether the call is pure read-only, and never describes the shape of the returned candle series.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, prerequisite, access gate, and granularity limit. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: token sourcing, entitlement, and range caps. The main gap is return shape, which with no output schema must be inferred.

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%, so the schema documents most fields including limit, oi, and continuous. The description adds real value on the interval parameter by tying minute granularity to a ~60-day lookback limit, but it says nothing about oi, continuous, or the date-format relationship between from_date and to_date.

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 and resource: fetch historical OHLC candles for an instrument. 'Historical' implicitly separates it from get_ohlc/get_quote siblings, but it never names them explicitly, so the differentiation has to be inferred.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: run search_instruments first to obtain the instrument_token, and note that a paid Kite Connect subscription is required. It does not address when to choose this over get_ohlc for current data, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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