compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds the cardinality constraint (Max 10), which provides useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key constraint, earning a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, an output schema for returns, and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explanation of what 'technical analysis' entails or how results differ from siblings, leaving some gaps.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for missing parameter details, but it does not explain 'symbols' or 'interval' beyond their names. While the param names and enum values are somewhat clear, the description adds no additional meaning, making it insufficient for low coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'compare' and resource 'technical analysis' across multiple symbols, with a specific constraint 'Max 10', which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze' (single symbol) or 'scan' (screening).

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 description implicitly indicates usage for comparing up to 10 symbols, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The 'Max 10' provides a clear limit, adding context for appropriate use.

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