compare_stock_valuations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'a comparative analysis with P/E, PEG, Price-to-Book ratios and highlights relative value opportunities,' but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is positive and promotional, missing behavioral traits like data recency or limitations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third describes output. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key output highlights. It does not mention error cases, maximum tickers, or data source, but for a simple comparative tool, it provides essential information for selection and 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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by explaining the output (which metrics are returned), but it does not elaborate on parameter meanings or usage constraints beyond what the schema provides. The value added is marginal.

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 it is a 'relative valuation analysis tool' that compares key metrics across multiple stocks, specifying the verb (compare) and resource (stock valuations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_fundamental_stock_metrics' by focusing on relative comparison for peer analysis or sector comparisons.

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 provides explicit usage contexts: 'when performing peer analysis, sector comparisons, or evaluating multiple investment candidates side-by-side.' It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, but the given guidance is clear and sufficient.

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