compare_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention output format, data sources, authentication requirements (despite the contact_email parameter), or any limitations. The described behavior is limited to the comparison action itself.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and lists specific metrics without wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informative detail.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description is too sparse for a tool with three required parameters and a complex sibling landscape. It omits parameter explanations, usage context, and any caveats, making it incomplete for reliable agent selection.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (first_cik, second_cik, contact_email). The agent receives no help understanding what a 'cik' is or why an email is required, leaving critical semantics undefined.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' and lists concrete financial metrics (revenue, margins, returns, etc.), making the tool's core function clear. It implies comparing companies, which distinguishes it from tools that retrieve single-company data, though it does not explicitly mention 'two companies' or name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_company_financials or get_financial_ratios. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for using it.

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