get_equities_bars_daily

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds significant behavioral context: plan-specific retention (e.g., Free=2y with 12-week delay), API fallback on cache miss, performance warning for date-only queries, and that code must be 5 digits (4-digit for ordinary shares only). This goes well 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, plan info, args) and front-loaded. However, it includes verbose Japanese translations that may not be necessary for an English-language tool definition. Still, it is efficient and earns its place without excessive redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers all critical aspects: parameter combinations, plan retention, performance caveats, and alternatives. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool, with no obvious missing details.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully document parameters. It does so thoroughly: explains code format (5 digits, example 27800, 4-digit matches ordinary shares), date formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), and range semantics for date_from/date_to. This compensates entirely 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 it provides per-stock or per-day OHLC bars, specifying Japanese terms for stock price, daily bar, OHLC, adjusted close/volume. It distinguishes from sibling get_bulk_list for bulk downloads and implies difference from get_equities_bars_daily_am (not explicitly named but context hints at alternative for after-hours). The verb 'get' and resource 'equities bars daily' are specific and 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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives (get_bulk_list for multi-stock bulk downloads) and warns that date-only queries are very slow. It explains parameter combinations: code only gives full history, code+range gives period, date only gives all stocks on that date. Plan retention and delay details guide usage expectations. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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