Compare companies side by side

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: fiscal years end on different dates across companies and the period end used is shown, helping the agent understand cross-company comparability caveats.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, scope, and the key caveat about fiscal-year alignment. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 multi-company comparison tool with four well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential comparison logic, metric scope, and the period-end caveat. It does not describe output format details, but the response_format parameter and the note that period ends are shown provide adequate context for invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents companies, metrics, fiscal_year, and response_format. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating metric categories and the fiscal-year default, which is already in the 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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), a specific resource (2-10 companies), and a clear scope (key metrics for latest or given fiscal year). It clearly differentiates from siblings like edgar_get_key_metrics (single company) and edgar_rank_companies (ranking) by emphasizing side-by-side multi-company comparison.

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 appropriate use case: comparing multiple companies on metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the selection guidance to inference rather than direct instruction.

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