get_technical_indicators

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds valuable context: null when not warmed up, API fallback on cache miss, indicator specifics (bb20 ±2σ). No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then detailed parameters. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose with plan list but no wasted words.

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 output schema exists, description adequately covers all aspects: purpose, usage, behavior (null when cold), parameter details, and plan information. No gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully documents all parameters: code required, date/date_from/date_to with format hints, indicators list with default. Adds meaning beyond schema types.

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?

Clearly states purpose: compute technical indicators for a single stock. Uses specific verb 'Compute' and resource 'technical indicators for a single stock'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives (get_candlestick_data, 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: 'Use for SMA・移動平均・ボリンジャーバンド・RSI queries on a specific stock.' Provides alternatives for charting and VWAP, offering clear when-not guidance.

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