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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the data provenance (SEC filings, accession citations), that price is delayed, that each row's window ends at its own ttm_to, and how P/E is derived (FY + YTD − prior YTD). It still omits failure behavior — what happens when a ticker has no filings or an unsupported layout ('net debt for standard layouts' is left as a riddle) and whether calls are throttled.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the table scope arrives in the first clause, followed by metrics, then output semantics, then citation mechanics. It is a dense single paragraph, but essentially every clause carries information and no sentence is filler.

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?

A rich output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still usefully explains how to read the output (order sorting directions, comparability per layout, cell_notes, sources.edgar). The gaps are the undefined 'standard layouts' case and no word on tickers lacking SEC filings.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'symbols' with its 2-to-6 ticker constraint. The description restates the same 2-6 bound with no extra syntax, error, or ordering guidance, so this sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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 and resource — 'side-by-side comparison of 2-6 stocks as one table' — then enumerates exactly which figures the table contains (revenue, margins, EPS growth, net debt, price, 52-week distance, market cap, P/E). That scope cleanly separates it from single-stock siblings like analyze_stock and from raw feeds like fetch_quote or fetch_income_statement.

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 multi-symbol table framing implies when to reach for it (comparative screening rather than a single name), but the description never states that explicitly and never names an alternative such as analyze_stock or financials. Nor does it say when not to use it, e.g. above six tickers.

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