compare_investment_candidates

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

The description adds key behavioral info beyond annotations: it discloses no LLM usage (cost=0), parallel fetch, and token-effective structured output, which are not in annotations. It also explains internal invocation of get_full_stock_analysis.

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 a single paragraph but packs essential information efficiently. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and front-loads the main purpose and distinction from compare_stocks.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the tool's internal behavior, parameter usage, and comparison scope. It lacks explicit return format details, but the agent can infer from parameter descriptions and the context of structured data fetch.

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 100% with good descriptions. The description adds context: it implies default for include_thesis is true and include_news is false, and reinforces that codes expect 2-5 stocks. This adds semantic value beyond the schema alone.

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 it compares 2-5 investment candidates with deep analysis, contrasting with compare_stocks which only covers PE/PB/dividend yield. It specifies the resources (get_full_stock_analysis) and additional thesis status, making the purpose distinct among siblings.

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 explains when to use this tool (for deep comparison) and contrasts with compare_stocks, providing context. It also mentions parameters like include_news and include_thesis, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond compare_stocks.

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