compare_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists example metrics but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, data freshness, error handling, or whether results are real-time. It is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation-free tool.

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 concise with a clear summary line followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description gives a good overview of return values by listing example metrics. It mentions the key parameters adequately. However, it could include constraints like maximum number of symbols or error handling notes.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining symbols as comma-separated stock symbols and mode with examples ('consolidated default or standalone'). It clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema, although it does not mention the default for mode.

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 the tool compares multiple companies side-by-side on key financial metrics. The verb 'compare' and resource 'companies' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_company (single company) and search_companies (searching).

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 when to use (compare companies on metrics) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations is provided.

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