get_annual_price_history

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

Although no annotations exist, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the data source (Yahoo Finance), that no API key is needed, that prices are split-adjusted, and that results are aggregated per calendar year. It does not detail error handling for invalid tickers or rate limits, but for a free read-only lookup this is a minor gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by aggregation details and data-source context. Minor redundancy exists between 'annual high, low, and average close prices' and the subsequent restatement as 'highest intraday, lowest intraday, and mean daily closing price,' but this is not harmful.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains row granularity, source, split adjustment, and parameter meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; only edge-case behavior like unavailable tickers is left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description compensates by defining both parameters. ticker gets examples ('AAPL', 'MSFT'), and years is explained as the number of years of history with its default. It lacks constraints (e.g., positive integer), but the schema's integer type and default cover the basic contract.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: fetching annual high, low, and average close prices. The second sentence further specifies the output granularity (one row per calendar year, highest intraday, lowest intraday, mean daily close), which separates it from the fundamental-data tools in the sibling list.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like get_financial_history or get_stock_fundamentals, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose: use when annual price summary data is needed.

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