get_peer_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes side-by-side metrics but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as data freshness, peer selection logic, or any potential limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral hints.

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 including an example, with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. However, it omits context on how peers are determined (e.g., industry classification) and the scope of the comparison, which could lead to ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides an example usage ('get_peer_comparison("TCS")') implying symbol is a stock ticker. This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a stock with its industry peers and lists specific metrics (PE, PB, market cap, ROE). The verb 'Compare' and resource 'stock with industry peers' are precise, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_key_ratios or get_stock_quote.

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 use for peer comparison but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_key_ratios or get_stock_quote. No when-not or context exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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