Stock Comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds that the server auto-selects industry peers and that comparison_symbols is pending backend support. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the core idea.

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?

The description is incomplete: it only describes Mode A, ignoring Mode B with comparison_symbols. Given the tool has a pending parameter and two modes, the description should cover both for completeness.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that passing only symbol triggers auto-selection of peers, and notes pending support for comparison_symbols. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond 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 'Stock valuation comparison' and specifies Mode A behavior (single symbol returns stock + peers). However, it omits Mode B involving comparison_symbols, which reduces clarity about full functionality.

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 gives minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like valuation or industry_valuation. It hints at two modes but doesn't explicitly state when to pass only symbol vs. comparison_symbols.

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