compare_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'compare' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what gets compared (prices? returns? volatility?), the comparison format, or any limitations like rate limits or data availability constraints.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The bilingual approach (Japanese purpose, English parameter details) is efficient, though the structure could be more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks crucial behavioral context. It doesn't explain what comparison results look like, what metrics are compared, or any constraints on date ranges or symbol counts.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbols' are stock codes with examples, and clarifies that start_date and end_date use YYYY-MM-DD format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's purpose as '複数銘柄を比較' (compare multiple symbols), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_price_range or get_yearly_summary, which also involve symbol data analysis.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this comparison tool is appropriate versus using individual price tools like get_price_range or summary tools like get_yearly_summary for similar data.

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