get_worst_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 implies a read-only operation by retrieving ranking data, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the Args section explains parameter meanings. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and parameters but lacks important context about output format, error conditions, and when to use versus sibling tools. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps in behavioral and strategic guidance.

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?

The description provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters: 'symbol' as stock code, 'year' as year with example, and 'limit' as number of items to retrieve with default value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining what each parameter represents, though it doesn't provide format constraints or validation rules.

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: '指定年の下落日ワーストランキング' (worst declining days ranking for a specified year). It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'worst days ranking', though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_best_days' beyond the 'worst' vs 'best' distinction in the name.

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 like 'get_best_days' or 'get_yearly_summary'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only basic parameter information without strategic direction.

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