Metric history (chart-ready)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds that data is normalized and chart-ready, which is useful context, but does not explain further behavior like normalization specifics or response volume. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, two sentences, with a clear example of the output format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds the clarifying note that no charts are produced. No wasted 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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required, output schema present), the description is adequate for basic usage but does not specify normalization basis, time range defaults, or how to interpret the data. The sibling tools like get_financials suggest overlap, so more usage guidance would improve completeness.

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 only 50%, but the description shows the exact output shape, which implicitly clarifies what the 'metrics' parameter should contain (keys in the response). It doesn't explain 'periods' or 'frequency' beyond schema, but the response example and metric names give enough guidance.

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 states a specific resource (time series of normalized financial metrics) and indicates it is chart-ready, distinguishing output format. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the context and wording make its purpose clear.

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?

Implied usage: for retrieving metric history in a structured format. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_financials or compare_financials, but the chart-ready emphasis hints at use cases. No explicit exclusions.

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