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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say how peers are determined (industry classification? market?), whether the data is a live snapshot or cached, what the response contains, or any rate/permission constraints beyond the word 'current'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. However, its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given how little behavior it conveys.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials of what it returns at a high level. With no output schema and no annotations, it should at least sketch the response (peer list plus valuation metrics) and how peers are selected, which it does not.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'symbol' (with format examples) and the optional 'type' parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (the company's industry peers) plus a content hint (valuation cross-section). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_industries_rank or get_industry_distribution, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must infer that this is a per-company peer lookup rather than an industry-level aggregate, with nothing in the text to confirm that.

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