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 discloses that results are free, SIC-based, US-only, and ranked by revenue closeness, but it does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or output format in detail.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It communicates the core purpose, ranking method, and downstream use efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose and output type, especially for a simple two-parameter tool. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, it omits details needed to fully understand input constraints and invocation behavior.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the ticker or limit parameters. It implies a US company ticker is needed, but leaves the optional limit parameter and its maximum of 11 completely undocumented in prose.

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 states a specific resource and behavior: SIC-based peer tickers for a US company, ranked by revenue closeness. It also explicitly names the sibling get_comps as the next step, so an agent can distinguish its role.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool should be used to obtain peer tickers before calling get_comps. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, but the intended workflow context is clear.

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