compare_companies

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: an enforced 2–10 company bound and that narrative output is cited, which tells the agent output is sourced. It says nothing about failure modes, permissions, rate limits, or what the comparison result actually contains.

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 dense sentence with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (side-by-side, XBRL, 2–10 bound, optional narrative) adds 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage. The description leaves the metrics parameter undefined and gives no sense of the comparison result shape or when a narrative answer is produced, which is too thin for a multi-entity analysis tool.

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% for all three parameters. The description covers tickers indirectly (the 2–10 companies bound) and question indirectly (the 'cited narrative answer'), but the metrics parameter is never mentioned, so one of three parameters is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (compare) and resource (companies) and adds useful scope details: side-by-side XBRL comparison of 2–10 companies. It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-company siblings like get_financials or ask_filing, but never names them, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'optionally with a cited narrative answer' hints that a question turns on the narrative mode, but the agent is not told when to prefer compare_companies over get_financials or ask_filing.

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