compare_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It names the arguments and lists valid metric options, which is helpful, but it does not disclose output format, potential errors, or any side effects. The tool is clearly a read-only comparison, yet the description omits details about the return structure beyond what the output schema presumably provides.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by labeled argument definitions and a bulleted list of metric options. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter comparison tool, the description provides sufficient parameter detail and available metrics. An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented there. Minor gaps include lack of ticker formatting guidance or behavior on invalid metrics, but these are not critical for selection and basic invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: tickers with an example list and metric with a comprehensive enum-like list of 15 options. This goes far beyond the bare schema types and gives the agent precise knowledge of accepted values.

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 'Compare multiple stocks side-by-side on a single metric,' which specifies the verb (compare), resource (stocks), and scope (multiple, on a single metric). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual financial statements or price history.

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 tool's purpose is concrete and self-evident from the description: use it for side-by-side comparison of a chosen metric across multiple tickers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_stock_info for individual queries, which would be stronger guidance.

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