Comparable Companies

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a peer set with multiples, which provides useful behavioral context. It does not describe details like peer selection criteria or multiple types, but with the output schema present, the additional information is adequate.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core output ('comparable companies for a US stock') before adding expanding detail. Every clause serves a purpose: specifying the peer set, the multiples, and the intended use-case pattern.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The relative-valuation use case is explicitly stated, and no additional call-specific guidance is necessary.

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 already fully documents the ticker parameter (100% coverage) with a clear example. The description reinforces that the ticker is for a US stock, matching the schema, but adds little beyond it. Since schema coverage is high, 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning the subject company plus peers with valuation multiples for relative-valuation questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'valuation multiples' and 'relative-valuation', making it obvious this is for comps rather than quotes, fundamentals, or screening.

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 gives a clear usage context with the example question 'how does <company> compare to peers', which signals when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the relative-valuation framing makes the intended use case clear.

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