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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context. It lists the computed outputs (SMA, RSI, trend direction), making the tool's behavior transparent without contradicting the 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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then lists outputs, then gives usage examples – each sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with a full output schema and safe annotations. The description covers purpose, output metrics, and usage examples, leaving no obvious gaps. Return values are already documented by the output schema, so no extra explanation is needed.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds limited value. It provides example ticker pairs (e.g., GDX/GLD) that clarify numerator/denominator roles, but doesn't add meaning beyond schema descriptions for period_days.

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 starts with 'Calculate relative strength ratio between two tickers (A/B)' – a specific verb and resource. It also lists the exact outputs (current ratio, SMA(50)/SMA(200), RSI, trend direction), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_intermarket or get_technical_indicators.

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 states 'Used for inter-market analysis' and provides concrete examples (GDX/GLD, HYG/LQD, XLK/SPY), giving an agent clear context for when to apply it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_intermarket, but the examples effectively communicate the typical use case.

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