get_top_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Retrieve'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns company data. It doesn't explain what 'top' means (by what metric?), what data is returned about each company, the format of the response, or any limitations. For a retrieval tool with rich sibling tools and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'specific sector' which aligns with the 'sector' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve') and target resource ('top companies in a specific sector'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_etfs', 'get_top_growth_companies', or 'get_top_performing_companies', which all retrieve top items but for different categories.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others like 'get_top_growth_companies' or 'get_top_performing_companies'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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