compare_peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does explain the main behavior: it returns three kinds of series and an industry distribution. However, it does not disclose how peers are selected, what timeframe granularity is used, or how missing/edge cases are handled, so the behavioral disclosure is partially complete.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and outputs, then adds an interpretative use case ('Answers is this good?') that gives the agent meaningful selection guidance without extra 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (company series, peer series, distribution) and the schema covers parameter semantics thoroughly. It lacks details like peer selection criteria or data frequency, but nothing required for a competent call is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds only conceptual mapping ('single metric' to metric, 'several years' to years, 'peers' to peer_count), which is helpful but not beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Benchmark'), a specific resource ('one company against its industry peers'), and a specific scope ('on a single metric over several years'). It also states the concrete outputs (company series, peer series, industry distribution), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_financials or get_ranking.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when a single company's numbers cannot answer 'is this good?' it provides relative benchmarking against peers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'which a single company's numbers alone cannot' implies the contrast with standalone financial data tools.

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