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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authorization requirements, error handling, or behavior for invalid symbols. This is a significant gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loads the primary function, listing the metrics in the first sentence and the parameter in the second. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose and the parameter. It does not mention edge cases or limitations (e.g., mixed asset types, invalid symbols), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'symbols' are ticker symbols and providing a concrete example (["RENDER", "AKT", "NVDA"]). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not specify constraints like maximum count or format details.

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 function: side-by-side comparison of core metrics for multiple assets, and lists specific metrics (price, 30d change, revenue). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset or get_asset_metrics, which focus on single assets.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to compare several assets' metrics) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_asset_metrics or search_assets. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.

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