Compare Companies

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds context about returning key financial metrics side-by-side and default years, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, data freshness, or API limitations. Given annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every part adds value—states what it does, scope, and use cases.

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 description suffices for the tool's complexity given annotations cover safety. It explains default years and optional metrics. No output schema exists, but the return value (financial metrics) is implied. Could mention output format, but not critical.

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 67%, with descriptions for orgnrs and metrics. The description adds meaning by stating the default years (5) and that metrics is an optional subset, which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's min/max/default.

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 it compares financial metrics of Norwegian companies side-by-side, specifying the resource (financial metrics), action (compare), and scope (up to 5 companies, N years). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_company_financials which targets a single company.

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 suggests use cases: competitor analysis, benchmark research, or comparing strengths. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternative tools for single-company financials.

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