get_yearly_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists parameters and doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the summary includes. It fails to provide essential context for safe and effective use.

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 concise with a clear title-like statement followed by parameter details in a structured format. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating the tool's purpose upfront. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the yearly summary contains, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its functionality and use.

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 adds minimal semantics by providing an example for the 'year' parameter ('例: 2020'), which clarifies the expected format. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining the 'symbol' parameter meaning or constraints. The baseline is 3 since the schema lacks descriptions, but the description only partially addresses this gap.

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 states '指定年の年間サマリー' (yearly summary for specified year), which indicates the tool retrieves summary data for a given year. However, it doesn't specify what type of summary (financial, performance, etc.) or what resource it operates on, and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_price_range or get_best_days. The purpose is vague but not tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like get_price_range or get_best_days. It only lists parameters without context for usage.

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