Compare Companies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the output: per-company current state and monthly snapshot history, plus the limit of 5 companies. No contradictions.

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 efficient: two sentences plus an example. The first sentence states the primary purpose. Minor typo ('Analyst tier. tier.') slightly detracts but does not harm understanding.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and read-only behavior, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately, listing the returned fields. It could add details on formatting or ordering, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Up to 5 companies' for domains, 'monthly snapshot history' for months) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 hiring profiles of multiple companies side-by-side', with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company_profile' by focusing on multiple companies. Example usage reinforces the purpose.

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 explicit use cases ('compare hiring at Stripe vs Plaid vs Adyen', 'which of these is growing fastest?'), which guide the agent. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear given sibling tools for single companies.

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