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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful account-connection prerequisite, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset), the field-directory path semantics, or what the analytics payload contains.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the prerequisite is front-loaded ahead of the purpose. Efficient, though the ordering means the actual function is stated second.

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 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: symbol format, what limit/offset paginate, how 'path' selects a root of the returned field directory, and what the analytics result looks like.

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 only 20%: only 'path' is documented, while symbol1/symbol2, limit and offset have no schema descriptions. The description implies the two symbols are securities but never states the ticker format (the regex allows optional leading slash and 20 chars) or what limit/offset govern.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('correlation, relative action and divergence analytics for two distinct securities'), which is clearly different from siblings like analyze_portfolio or research_company. The phrase 'relative action' is vague jargon, but the core comparison purpose is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite ('Requires a SignalDock account connection'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over research_company, analyze_portfolio, or read_report, and no exclusions or conditions for use.

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