compare_stocks_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool accepts a comma-separated symbol string, enforces a 2-5 stock limit, and returns a comparison table with specific financial metrics. This is transparent about inputs and outputs, though it doesn't mention data sources or real-time availability, which is acceptable for a comparison 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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a bullet-like list of output metrics, an args section, and three relevant examples. Every part adds value; the examples are especially useful for understanding input format. No wasted 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 tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, comparison output), the description is complete: it provides the input format, valid range, examples, and output contents. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return structure, so no critical information is missing.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'symbols' as a string with no description. The description compensates fully by specifying the exact format ('Comma-separated stock symbols (2-5 stocks)'), providing multiple examples, and clarifying the expected semantics. This is far beyond what the schema offers.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare 2-5 stocks side by side' and lists exact metrics displayed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stock_quote or technical_indicators that focus on single-stock or other 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 examples demonstrate when to use the tool (e.g., 'Compare 3 Indian IT giants', 'Compare US tech', 'Compare banks') with concrete symbol lists. While no explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated, the context is clear that this tool is for multi-stock comparisons, which differentiates it from single-stock tools.

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