detect_price_limit

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: cache-only (no API call), data timing (~17:15 JST), and specific behavior when 'code' is omitted vs given (returns triggered rows vs always returns that stock's row). 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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, but is slightly verbose. It could be more concise without losing clarity, but overall it is easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers input behavior, output characteristics, supported plans, data timing, and edge cases (e.g., code behavior). No gaps are apparent.

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%, but the description provides full parameter semantics: date format (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), code optional with detailed behavior (scan all vs specific stock), and detail flag for full data array. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: finding stocks hitting the daily price limit (upper/lower). It specifies the use case for ストップ高/安 queries and distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_volume_surge and compare_close_vs_vwap.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for ストップ高・ストップ安・値幅制限 queries') and provides clear alternatives for volume spikes and VWAP pressure. Also indicates data availability timing.

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