getHistoricalNasdaqChanges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool uses the Historical Nasdaq API and provides data on company additions and removals, offering useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the key action (access historical data) and specifying the scope (Nasdaq index evolution). No superfluous information.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately explains the output (composition changes, additions, removals). It could be more specific about the time range or format, but it provides a clear picture of the tool's function.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool provides historical data for the Nasdaq index, specifically focusing on composition changes, additions, and removals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getHistoricalDowJonesChanges and getHistoricalSP500Changes by explicitly naming the index.

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 implies usage for accessing Nasdaq historical composition data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the name and context make it clear, and no exclusions are provided. This is clear context without explicit guidance.

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