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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond that: the >10 point LIS gap divergence threshold, the fact that divergence is treated as a governance signal, and that historical trend direction (widening/narrowing) is included in the result.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler or restatement of the tool name. Dense with substantive detail; a tighter consolidation of the metric list and threshold sentence is the only minor room for improvement.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs: what is compared, the interpretation threshold, and the trend content. Return-value detail beyond this is already carried by the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (ticker) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it with an example format. The description adds no additional meaning about the ticker beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (get) plus a distinctive resource (Chair vs CEO communication alignment for a company) and enumerates the compared dimensions: LIS, sentiment, conviction, transparency. This is readily separable from adjacent siblings like get_agm_speeches (raw text) or get_disclosure_language (single-entity language scoring).

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 governance-signal framing, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing. An agent must infer that this is the comparative counterpart to get_agm_speeches and get_disclosure_language, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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