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

Annotations already carry readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Beyond them, the description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: all symbols are read from one normalized snapshot, so results are internally consistent rather than fetched independently. It also signals that symbols may be only partially resolved (requested vs resolved), which is important for interpreting missing data.

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, front-loaded with the countable 2-10 scope and the snapshot-consistency point. Slightly compressed jargon ('mkts snapshot', 'provenance metadata') costs a little readability without bloating length.

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 one-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: input range, snapshot semantics, and a rough idea of the return payload. With no output schema present, the return contract is only sketched rather than specified, which is the only real gap.

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% and the single 'symbols' parameter is already documented with examples and min/max bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the 2-10 constraint and hints at symbol resolution ('requested and resolved'), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (compare) and resource (market symbols) with an explicit cardinality bound (2 to 10) and a consistency guarantee (same normalized snapshot). It does not name a sibling it is *not*, so an agent must still infer its distinction from get_market_snapshot or get_assets_bulk.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'compare' and the 2-10 range: use it when you need multiple symbols side by side. There is no explicit when/when-not statement and no pointer to get_market_snapshot or get_assets_bulk as the single-symbol or bulk alternatives.

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