stock_compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the financial metrics shown, which is helpful, but does not cover error handling (e.g., invalid tickers) or data availability limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing metrics more explicitly).

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 the low complexity (2 string params) and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and main output. However, it does not explain the format of the comparison (e.g., table, percentages) or any limitations, which would be helpful.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions of parameters 'company_a' and 'company_b' as names or tickers. The description adds value by specifying these are US public companies and hinting at the metrics shown, which goes beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'financial data of two US public companies side by side'. It mentions specific metrics (revenue, net income, margins, assets), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stock_financials which likely handles single companies.

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 usage when comparing two US companies, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool (e.g., for international companies, or when needing filings). No alternatives are named, though the sibling tools provide context.

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