detect_52w_high_low

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: default params hit cache (sub-second), custom params compute on-demand (10–30s), data available at ~17:15 JST, and date constraint (within past 52 weeks). This extra information enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, performance, plans, args). It is reasonably concise for the amount of information conveyed, with key points front-loaded. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating plan info) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (5 parameters, caching, cross-sectional scans), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use alternatives, performance expectations, data availability, supported plans, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values are adequately handled elsewhere.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: date format and range, code optional for cross-sectional scan, window_sessions default (252), min_prior_sessions default (60), and detail flag for full data. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 screens for 52-week rolling high/low breakouts, with specific example search tags in Japanese and English. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_52w_high_low_range and detect_ytd_high_low, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: for multi-date scans use detect_52w_high_low_range, for YTD high/low use detect_ytd_high_low. It also notes that default parameters use cache and custom params compute on-demand, guiding appropriate usage.

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