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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the key alignment mechanism ('fiscal calendars end in different months still line up period by period'), the exact return shape ('one row per ticker carrying the aligned period values and the resolved XBRL tag'), and error behavior ('a per-row error for any ticker that fails to resolve or has never reported the metric'). It even points to pricing docs. This is comprehensive and exceeds the typical transparency level.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and follows with usage guidance, behavior, return format, and a pricing pointer. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. The structure is efficient for its complexity.

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 complexity (multi-company comparison with fiscal calendar alignment), the description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining the aligned periods, return row structure, and error handling. It also provides clear usage context and a pointer to pricing. Contextual completeness is high, and no important aspect seems missing.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters: limit, metric, period, and tickers. The tool description reinforces the 'one metric per call' rule but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus, per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Compares one normalized metric across several filers in a single call' with aligned reporting periods. It is specific about the resource (multiple filers), the action (compare one metric), and the scope (two to eight tickers), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_financials.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use it for peer, competitor or ranking questions' and 'where the same figure is wanted for two to eight tickers.' It also states a key constraint: 'Exactly one metric per call' and advises to 'ask again per metric if you need more.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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