get_dupont_analysis_comparison

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

The description states the tool returns a Markdown table, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose what the comparison is against (e.g., industry, peers) or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 brief and uses a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary detail, but the format could be more streamlined.

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 low schema coverage and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks explanation of what the comparison data contains (e.g., components of DuPont analysis) and how it differs from related tools.

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 0% coverage, but the description adds value by specifying the required format for stock_code (appending exchange code like .SH) and providing an example. This clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 retrieves DuPont analysis comparison data, which is a specific financial analysis method. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like 'get_financial_ratios' or 'get_growth_comparison', though it does not explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.

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