get_stock_price_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (plain-text Unicode chart) and the two ways to specify time range, but does not mention rate limits, data latency, or whether it requires authentication. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 two sentences, no waste. It front-loads the key purpose and follows with parameter guidance. Efficient.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers the main purpose, parameter usage, and output format. For a simple chart tool with 3 parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'period' and 'days' parameters by specifying their relationship (period for calendar ranges, days alone). However, it does not describe the 'ticker' parameter or the exact format of 'period'. This adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 specifies a verb-resource-action: it creates a plain-text Unicode chart for a stock. It is distinct from 'get_historical_prices' and 'get_stock_analysis' as it focuses on chart output, though it does not explicitly differentiate from those siblings.

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 gives clear guidance on how to specify the time range: use period for calendar ranges or days alone. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over its siblings (e.g., when you need a visual chart vs. raw prices or analysis).

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