compare_industries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Finviz groups page) and notes it is a 'current snapshot,' implying no historical data. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential rate limits, or any other side effects, though these are not critical for a simple comparison tool.

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 and well-structured, leading with the core purpose and then detailing parameters in an Args section. There is no fluff; every sentence adds value, including the pointer to the alternative tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the data source, parameter options, and the alternative tool. It does not mention default sorting behavior beyond the 'order' default, but this is minor. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'view' parameter with three enumerated values ('overview', 'valuation', 'performance') and the 'order' parameter with concrete examples ('name', 'marketcap', 'pe', etc.). It also points to compare_sectors for column details, providing actionable guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 all industries and returns aggregate metrics, specifying the resource (industries) and the action (compare). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling screen_industry by directing users there for screening stocks within a specific industry, making the purpose distinct.

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?

It provides an explicit alternative: 'To screen stocks within a specific industry, use screen_industry.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead. The description also implies it is for broad industry-level comparison across all industries, giving clear usage context.

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