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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely valuable caveat beyond the annotations: sentiment data is not wired and the narrative side is a disclosed proxy, warning the agent not to treat output as literal sentiment. It stops short of describing output shape or confidence handling.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core comparison is front-loaded. The second sentence is dense and repeats the proxy disclosure twice ('disclosed as a proxy, not literal sentiment measurement'), which is slightly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what the comparison yields, but it never says what the result looks like (a divergence score, a verdict, a directional signal) or how the two sides are weighted. The proxy caveat helps, but an agent still cannot predict the response when calling it.

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 100%, with ticker and timeHorizonDays (default 90) both documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail on how timeHorizonDays affects the comparison window or what ticker formats are accepted beyond the schema examples.

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 names the two things compared — real fundamental signals (P/E, reference data) versus a momentum/volatility proxy for narrative intensity — which is more specific than restating the name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like track_volatility_surface or mandelbrot_fractal_analysis, so an agent must infer that this tool is the fundamental-vs-narrative comparison.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related analysis (e.g. volatility surface or fractal analysis). The agent gets a definition of the computation but no routing guidance.

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