get_best_days

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves a ranking but doesn't describe what 'best rising days' means (e.g., based on percentage gain, absolute price increase), how results are sorted, whether data is real-time or historical, or any rate limits/authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries financial data.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section listing parameters. Each line adds value, though the purpose statement could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve top N days with highest price increases for a stock in a given year').

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., list of dates with metrics), what 'best' criteria are used, data sources, or error conditions. This is inadequate given the complexity of financial ranking queries.

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. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations: 'symbol: 銘柄コード' (stock code), 'year: 年 (例: 2020)' (year, e.g., 2020), and 'limit: 取得件数 (デフォルト5)' (number to retrieve, default 5). This adds basic meaning beyond the schema's titles but lacks details like symbol format, year range validity, or limit constraints.

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: '指定年の上昇日ベストランキング' (Best rising days ranking for a specified year). It specifies the verb ('get ranking') and resource ('rising days'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_worst_days' or 'get_yearly_summary' beyond the 'best' vs 'worst' distinction in names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_worst_days' for opposite rankings, 'get_yearly_summary' for broader annual data, or 'get_price_range' for price history, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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