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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral details such as output ordering, metric definitions, or limitations, but it does not contradict 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?

A single sentence with a strong verb, clear resource, and a concise list of the comparison axes. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter, read-only comparison tool with no nested objects, the description and schema together are nearly sufficient. The required symbols parameter has an example, the window has a sensible default, and the metric list implies the output nature, though exact return format is not specified.

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 schema describes symbols with an example and exposes the window enum, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It lists result dimensions rather than explaining how window or symbols affect the comparison, and schema description coverage is only 50%.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Compare' and names the resource, 'selected symbols', plus six concrete comparison dimensions. It is clearly distinct from a single-symbol intelligence tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related multi-symbol siblings like get_top_momentum.

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 intended use is implied: when you have a comma-separated list of symbols and want a comparative multi-factor read. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools among the 29 siblings.

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