companies_compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'compare' without explicitly confirming that it is a read-only operation, nor does it explain the 'normalized fact' processing or any limitations. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from this minimal description.

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 entire description is one sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action word 'Compare' and immediately gives the scope.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and a critical need for parameter clarification, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'normalized fact' means, how to specify sources, or what the output represents, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives context for `code` as the 'normalized fact' and for `company_ids` as the range of two to twenty issuers, but it fails to explain the `source` parameter or the format of the identifiers. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.

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 the specific verb 'compare' and specifies the resource: 'one normalized fact across two to twenty UK/ESEF issuers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like company_facts or financials_query, which likely focus on single-company data.

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 usage for cross-company comparison but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like financials_query or disclosures_search. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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