compare_peers

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation returning a table with specific metrics. However, it does not mention that it requires a ticker, the default market value, or any side effects. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words is very concise. No repetition or filler. However, it could be more informative without adding much length.

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 and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits how to use the tool (e.g., requires a ticker), what the output exactly looks like, and any limitations. Leaves the agent guessing.

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 has 0% coverage in descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'ticker' or 'market' mean, nor does it mention that 'market' defaults to 'IN'. No additional meaning is provided beyond the parameter names.

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's purpose: to compare a company with its sector peers on revenue, margins, valuation, and growth. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('peers'), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'analyze_company' or 'get_industry_intelligence'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or when to avoid it. The sibling list is provided but not leveraged.

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