compare_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that the comparison is neutral, that unresolved symbols populate an error field instead of failing the entire call, and that extra symbols beyond five are dropped. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, the key distinction from peer_valuation follows, and the parameter behavior is summarized in a clear param line. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 a single parameter and a supplied output schema, the description covers the essential context: the target market, the nature of the comparison, the failure mode, and the input limit. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing to open schemas.

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 only parameter, symbols, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates: 'ticker symbols to compare (max 5; extras are dropped)' clarifies the expected content, the limit, and the consequence of exceeding it. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare array-of-strings 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 names a precise verb and resource: compare profile, key ratios, growth, and health score for multiple NSE/BSE-listed Indian equities side by side. It also explicitly distinguishes this from relative-attractiveness ranking by pointing to peer_valuation, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (side-by-side comparison of fundamental metrics) and when not to use it (relative-attractiveness ranking), naming peer_valuation as the alternative. It also gives a concrete constraint (max 5 symbols) and partial-failure behavior, leaving little to inference.

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