compare_peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output artifacts (radar charts, sortable data tables, a file:/// interactive dashboard link) and gives an explicit directive to always share that link. Permissions/rate limits are not addressed, but for a read-only comparison this is a minor gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded with purpose first, then output behavior, then args. It is slightly padded by an Args block that partly duplicates the schema, but there is no real waste.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, compared metrics, and output artifacts. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so no further explanation is needed for correct 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 coverage is 0% (only 'type: string' for ticker), so the description must compensate, and it does by defining ticker as a stock ticker symbol and giving concrete examples including an international format (AAPL, RELIANCE.NS). This is meaningfully more than the bare schema provides.

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) and resource (a stock vs its sector peers) and enumerates the metrics compared (P/E, ROE, margins, growth, beta). This clearly distinguishes it from get_stock_price or get_financials, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly-named sibling get_sector_overview.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the purpose that this tool is for peer comparison rather than standalone analysis, but no conditions or exclusions are provided to route between the six sibling tools.

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