compare_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool compares metrics and lists available ones, but does not mention whether it's read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or output behavior (though output schema exists).

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clear structure with bullet points for metrics. While it includes all necessary details, it could be slightly more concise (e.g., removing redundant formatting instructions).

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered there. The description explains both parameters adequately. It misses no critical usage context for a compare function, though it could mention if the comparison is restricted to specific market data.

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 0%, yet the description adds significant meaning: it specifies tickers must be comma-separated and 2-5, and lists all available metrics. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Compare fundamental indicators across multiple stocks side by side.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_fundamentals' (single stock) or 'screen_stocks' (filtering by criteria).

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 explains the input format and optional metrics, implying use for comparative analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or any exclusions (e.g., 'use screen_stocks for filtering instead').

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