compare_financials

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the output behavior (comparing specific financial items side by side), input constraints (max 5 companies, optional year with default), and gives examples. However, it does not mention data source, update frequency, or potential limitations beyond the count.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement, a list of compared items, and a well-structured Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 tool's complexity (multi-company comparison, multiple financial metrics), the description covers inputs, constraints, and output structure adequately. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be detailed. However, it could mention error handling or expected format of comparison.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides thorough explanations for both parameters: company_names (list, 2-5 items, with example) and year (optional, format 'YYYY', defaults to previous year). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 financial statements of multiple companies (up to 5) and lists specific financial items compared. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_financial_summary 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 specifies the tool compares up to 5 companies and defaults year to previous year, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_financial_summary or scan_financial_anomaly. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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