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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions using an API and gaining insights, but does not state whether it is read-only, what data is returned, the response format, or any side effects/rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and the value proposition in the second. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's function but leaves the response format unspecified. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., a list of peer tickers, metrics), which is important since no output schema exists. The lack of behavioral details also reduces completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with a single 'symbol' parameter described as 'Stock symbol'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify symbol format or examples.

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 identifies and compares companies within the same sector and market capitalization range using the FMP Stock Peer Comparison API. It specifies the resource (peer companies) and the context (same exchange), though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getStockPeersBulk.

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 implies usage for gaining peer comparison insights ('how a company stacks up against its peers'), providing clear context but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when to choose the bulk variant instead.

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