Company Comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description aligns fully, detailing the read-only operation and output format (derived rankings). No contradictions, and the description adds significant behavioral context (categories of metrics, derived rankings) beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first states core purpose, second lists all metric categories, third gives use cases. Front-loaded, no filler, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (many metrics and derived rankings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input constraints (2-5 symbols), output nature (derived rankings), and typical use cases. No gaps for an agent to misuse.

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 100% (the symbols parameter has a detailed description including example). The tool description restates '2-5 companies' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies across price, valuation, profitability, financial health, growth, dividends, and analyst ratings. It also lists derived rankings (lowest_pe, etc.). This clearly distinguishes from siblings get_company_metrics (likely single company) and get_stock_snapshot (likely a quick overview).

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 explicit use cases: 'Use this for investment comparisons, competitive analysis, or evaluating alternatives in the same sector.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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