history_batch

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the operation is known to be non-destructive. The description adds the batch behavior beyond the annotations, but does not disclose limits, date-range handling semantics, or output format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The key batch behavior is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema, no per-parameter descriptions, and only a one-line description, the tool is under-specified for correct invocation. An agent would need to guess date formats, the meaning of scoring_system_id, and response shape, despite the read-only annotation.

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 for the bare parameter names. It clarifies that 'tickers' is an array of security identifiers, but it does not explain start, end, or scoring_system_id, leaving three of four parameters semantically under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('score history'), and a defining scope ('several tickers at once'). This distinguishes it from siblings like history_ticker, which implies single-ticker history, and history_top, which implies top-ranked tickers.

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?

'Several tickers at once' clearly communicates the batch context and implies this tool is the right choice when multiple ticker histories are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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