Compare Disclosure Signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses parallel lookups, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention data freshness, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. Given the mutation-like nature of comparison tools, more transparency could be warranted.

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 two sentences (about 60 words) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavioral detail and use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (multi-company, multiple signals), and the description covers input, signals, derived outputs, parallel execution, and use cases. Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values but still provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 one parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the parameter as 'ticker symbols or CIKs' and reinforcing the 2-5 range. It also explains how the parameter is used to generate derived winners, enriching the schema.

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 compares 2-5 companies across specific SEC disclosure signals, listing each signal and noting it returns derived 'winners.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from single-company sibling tools like get_company_filings_summary.

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 suggests use cases ('competitive intelligence or risk triage across a watchlist') and specifies the input range (2-5 tickers). It implicitly differentiates from siblings, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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