get_comps

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the EV construction formula and, importantly, the rule that multiples come back null with a reason when inputs are missing, negative, or not meaningful. That null-semantics disclosure is the kind of thing an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the field list, plus a definition sentence that earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema and only annotations covering safety, the description does list the return fields and null behavior, which is helpful. However it omits input semantics (tickers format/cardinality) and any routing guidance against the four sibling tools, leaving gaps for a look-up tool in a dense sibling set.

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 single parameter 'tickers' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It never states that the input is an array of ticker symbols, whether they can be mixed across exchanges, or how many can be supplied in one call, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (trading comparables) and enumerates the exact output fields it produces (market cap, EV, LTM revenue/EBITDA/net income, and the three multiples). An agent knows what it gets back, though the description never explicitly distinguishes this from get_financials or get_market_data, which overlap on raw financial metrics.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given, and no sibling tool is named. The agent must infer that this is the multi-ticker comparables tool versus get_financials or get_market_data on its own.

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