edgar_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes the tool's action but omits behaviors like conflict handling when both 'identifiers' and 'industry' are provided, output format, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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: a single sentence defining the tool followed by three concise examples. No filler, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 6-parameter tool with two major modes, the description covers the key use cases. It lacks mention of conflict resolution between inputs and output details (no output schema), but is otherwise complete for the primary scenarios.

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 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds real usage examples but does not clarify mutual exclusivity of 'identifiers' and 'industry' or explain parameter interactions beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool compares companies on financial metrics or analyzes an industry sector with peer selection. Examples clearly distinguish it from siblings like edgar_company (single company) and edgar_screen (filtering).

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 provides clear use cases with examples (company comparison vs. industry analysis). It does not explicitly exclude conflicting inputs or name alternatives but the usage contexts are well-defined.

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