peer_valuation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the 0-100 attractiveness score is min-max normalized within the supplied peer set only, lists the exact factors and weightings, warns the score is not absolute, and states that unresolved peers get an error field instead of failing the call.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage constraint, scoring methodology, error behavior, and parameter details are all included. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into scoring details.

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 tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavioral context: peer-set-relative scoring, input limits, and error handling, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to both parameters by labeling symbol as the anchor ticker and peer_symbols as peer tickers with a max of 5 and drop behavior. It could have added more detail about ticker formats but is otherwise sufficient.

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 compares valuation and quality multiples for Indian equities against explicit peer tickers, with a concrete resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from peer-discovery tools by noting Yahoo has no peer-discovery endpoint for Indian equities.

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?

It gives clear context that peers must be supplied and caps peer_symbols at 5, with extras dropped. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like compare_companies or historical_valuation, but the Indian-equity peer-comparison use case is clearly implied.

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