compare_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does so reasonably well: it discloses the 6-company cap, that entries are matched as substrings with all company-name variants combined, and that counts are not adjusted for company size. It omits permission/auth needs and any error or pagination behavior, but the matching semantics and the size-normalization caveat are genuinely valuable disclosures.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and metric scope first, then the input-matching rule, then the important normalization caveat. No filler, and the caveat is placed last so it reads as a qualifier rather than burying the main purpose.

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 output schema handles return values, so the metric list need not be exhaustive. However, for a six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves the filter parameters' semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap an agent must fill from sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only does so for one of six parameters: 'companies' gets clear semantics (substring match, all variants combined, max 6). The filter parameters (issue, state, product, date_from, date_to) are referred to only as 'the same filters' with no format, default, or matching explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('side-by-side comparison of up to 6 companies') and enumerates the compared metrics (complaints, timely_rate, relief rates, top product, top issue), which clearly separates it from single-company tools like company_profile. It never names the sibling it is not, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'comparison of up to 6 companies' framing; there is no explicit when-to-use versus company_profile or complaint_counts, and no exclusions. An agent can infer the multi-company context but receives no routing guidance.

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