peers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned comparison metrics, but it does not explain peer count, data freshness, or how peers are selected.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It presents the tool's purpose and returned metrics efficiently.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description usefully lists returned metrics. However, it omits input semantics, peer-selection behavior, and routing guidance versus compare_companies, leaving gaps an agent must resolve from the schema.

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%, and the description never mentions the required symbol parameter or its expected format. Although the parameter name 'symbol' is fairly self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the resource as a peer comparison table and lists concrete returned metrics (price, P/E, market cap, quarterly growth, ROCE). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compare_companies tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for peer comparison, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as compare_companies. An agent must infer usage from the one-sentence summary alone.

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