compare_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful 2–6 company constraint, but does not disclose what happens outside that range, how results are ordered, or any failure behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the metrics, and the scope with no wasted words. It is efficient, although the extreme brevity leaves gaps that could be closed in one additional clause.

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 exists, and the description partially compensates by naming the four metric categories returned. With only one simple parameter and full annotation coverage, this is adequate, but missing symbol-format guidance and error/edge-case behavior keep it from being complete.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It does add the important 2–6 item constraint on the symbols array that the schema lacks, but it never states the symbol format (tickers vs. names) or ordering expectations, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 operation (side-by-side comparison) and enumerates the covered dimensions (valuation, returns, margins, growth) plus the 2–6 company scope. An agent can tell what it does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'peers' tool, which is the nearest alternative.

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 implied by the 'side-by-side' framing and the 2–6 company range, which signals multi-company comparison rather than single-company lookup. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives like 'peers' or 'company_snapshot' is given.

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