compare_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the comparison surfaces (denial-rate flag, verdict), but says nothing about matching behavior for unknown employers, result limits, or cost — modest added value against an already-declared read-only profile.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded. The Args entries restate schema titles but earn their place by adding examples and format hints absent from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. Combined with full per-parameter documentation, the definition is nearly complete; the only gap is behavior when an employer name isn't found or how many companies are practical in one call.

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 carry the burden — and it does: each of the four params is explained, with an example list for companies and a format constraint ('two-letter worksite state') for state. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't say whether company names must match exactly or how partial/fuzzy names are handled.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (employers), and enumerates what is compared: filings, trend, green cards, denial-rate flag, verdict. The 'side by side' framing distinguishes it from single-employer siblings like company_sponsorship and find_employer, though those siblings are never named.

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 only implied by the 'two or more employer names' requirement — an agent can infer this is the multi-employer tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against find_employer or company_sponsorship for single-employer lookups.

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