get_stock_price_date_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the query shape. It does not say what price fields are returned, the data granularity (daily vs. intraday), the data source/basis, whether ranges are limited by history, or whether this is a read-only call. The only real disclosure is that the range is inclusive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight craftsmanship.

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 3-required-parameter data-retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what price values come back, at what interval, and how it differs from the many sibling price tools. It is complete enough to fire a call but not to call it correctly with confidence.

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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, start_date, and end_date with formats, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds one genuine semantic detail beyond the schema: the date range is inclusive, which affects how the agent sets start_date/end_date.

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 verb and resource ('Get stock prices for a symbol over an inclusive date range'), so the agent knows it retrieves time-series price data rather than a single quote. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_historical_stock_prices, get_stock_price_by_date, or get_current_stock_price, which is exactly where an agent needs help choosing.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With at least three sibling tools that look like plausible substitutes (get_stock_price_by_date, get_historical_stock_prices, get_current_stock_price), the description should route the agent but leaves selection entirely to inference.

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