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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'cross-asset' scope and 'by effect type' dimension, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as default limit handling, whether effect_type is required, or what the response structure looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core concept. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail; this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no enums, and no required parameters, the description should explain what 'effect type' means, what the limit controls, and what a correlation result looks like. The output schema exists but the description still leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of the parameters and the use case. This is incomplete for a tool with this little schema documentation.

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 for the two parameters. It mentions 'effect type' which maps to the effect_type parameter, but it does not explain the limit parameter at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, and the limit parameter's semantics (e.g., number of results, default 30) are left entirely to the schema's default value.

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 'Cross-asset correlations by effect type' identifies a specific resource (correlations) and a dimension (effect type), but it does not clearly distinguish this from the many other get_* tools in the sibling list. It is more specific than a tautology, but an agent would still need to infer what 'effect type' means and how this differs from get_market_data or get_risk.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose between get_correlations and the many other get_* tools. The only hint is the phrase 'by effect type', which implies a filtering dimension but does not explain when it is appropriate.

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