get_peers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It identifies the data source (Screener.in) and the nature of the output (comparison table of peers), but doesn't disclose potential behaviors like scrape delays, rate limiting, unavailable data for certain symbols, or what happens for symbols without sector peer data.

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, efficient sentence that packs in the purpose (peer comparison), scope (Indian stocks), content (P/E, ROE, market cap), and source (Screener.in). No wasted words.

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 single-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basics well. However, there's no mention of the output format/structure, whether the peer set is defined by Screener.in's sector classification, or edge cases. Given its relative simplicity, this is a slight gap but not severe.

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%, and the parameter 'symbol' has a clear description with concrete examples (TCS, RELIANCE, MTARTECH). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema since the symbol parameter is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 provides a sector peer comparison table for an Indian stock, listing metrics like P/E, ROE, market cap. It names the source (Screener.in), which adds useful context. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but its purpose is specific and clear.

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 when to use it (when you want peer comparison data for a stock), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_fundamentals or get_financials. The context is clear but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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