compare_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns ESG scores, classifications, and metadata, which implies a read-only comparison. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, sorting order, or any other side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality and output. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (one array parameter) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential return values ('ESG scores, classifications, and metadata for each company'). It could be slightly more explicit about output formatting, but it is sufficiently complete for a comparison tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'companyIds' with a clear description ('Array of 2-5 company pro IDs to compare'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Compare'), the resource ('2-5 companies'), and the comparison mode ('side by side'). It also outlines the returned content (ESG scores, classifications, metadata), which distinguishes it from single-company tools like get_company_profile.

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 phrase 'Compare 2-5 companies side by side' gives clear context for when to use the tool and implies it is for multi-entity comparison rather than single-company lookup. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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