get_industry_profit_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the function as fetching data and returning a Markdown table, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any potential side effects.

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 concise, with sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 covers the tool's purpose, input format, and output type (Markdown table). Given the single parameter and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), it is fairly complete. However, it lacks context about limitations or performance considerations.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by specifying the stock_code format with an exchange suffix (e.g., '688041.SH'), which is not present in the schema's type definition. This helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 it retrieves peer profit comparison data for a given stock, including basic financial and profitability indicators. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_valuation_comparison or get_growth_comparison.

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 it is for industry profit comparison but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_financial_ratios or get_growth_comparison. An example is given, but no when-not-to-use advice.

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