value_stock_pe

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the calculation logic (fair price formula, optional PEG ratio) but does not mention limitations (e.g., P/E inappropriate for negative earnings) or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and formula; the second adds optional functionality. Could benefit from structured listing of parameters but remains 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?

Despite an output schema documenting return values, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It explains the required parameters but omits descriptions for optional parameters (company_growth, industry_growth) and their role in PEG calculation.

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 clarify each parameter. It explains 'eps' and 'industry_pe' via the formula but does not define 'company_growth' or 'industry_growth' beyond implying they relate to PEG ratio. Optional parameters are left for the agent to infer.

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?

Description clearly states the tool values a stock using P/E ratio relative valuation, provides the formula (Fair Price = EPS × Industry P/E), and mentions optional PEG ratio calculation. It distinguishes from sibling valuation tools like DDM or DCF by specifying the method.

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 P/E-based relative valuation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., DDM for dividend stocks, DCF for cash flow analysis). No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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