screener_get_peer_comparison

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

Annotations declare safe read-only behavior; description adds value by listing the exact metrics returned, but does not disclose output format or limitations.

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?

Single sentence with 20 words, front-loaded with 'Peer comparison table', no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks input parameter details and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's requirements.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any parameters (symbol, consolidated, response_format), leaving the agent without guidance on input semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a peer comparison table with specific financial metrics (CMP, P/E, market cap, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like balance sheet or cash flow reports.

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 implies usage context (comparing a company with its industry peers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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