stock_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns financial history with key metrics, but lacks details on data frequency (annual vs. quarterly), data source, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with core purpose. However, it omits important details (e.g., output format) that could be included without significant expansion. Efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers intent but fails to describe return values structure (e.g., time series format, data units). Missing output details reduces completeness, though complexity is low.

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 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond schema. It mentions 'years' implicitly but does not elaborate on syntax or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves multi-year financial history and trends for US public companies, listing specific data points (revenue, net income, assets, CAGR). While it distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., stock_compare), it does not explicitly differentiate from stock_financials, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The description implies use for trend analysis but does not provide decision criteria.

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