global_peer_comps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond that by revealing the data source (screener.in), the point-in-time nature of the multiples, and the non-fabrication behavior: unavailable peers return status 'not_available' with a reason rather than a made-up valuation. It also honestly states the ceiling of free data versus paid market-data subscriptions, which is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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 core action and output fields in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently conveys coverage limits and failure behavior. The final sentence, while relevant for setting expectations, is slightly rhetorical and could be tightened without losing meaning. Overall it is well-structured but slightly more verbose than necessary.

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?

For a read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it and interpret results: the input convention, the source, the returned multiples, the failure mode for unsupported peers, and the explicit honesty boundary versus paid terminal data. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, companyNames, and the schema already describes it as peer companies to look up, typically the target plus discover_competitors' output. The description repeats the same guidance without adding extra meaning such as string format, company-name matching rules, or case sensitivity. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 precisely states what the tool does: for each peer company name, it searches screener.in and pulls real point-in-time valuation multiples, listing the exact metrics (CMP, Market Cap, Stock P/E, Book Value, ROCE, ROE). It is clearly distinguished from a generic global-comps tool by stating the Indian-listed-only limitation and the not_available status for private or foreign peers.

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 gives clear usage context: feed it peer names, typically the target plus discover_competitors' output, and use it only for Indian-listed companies. It also tells the agent when the tool will not work—for private or foreign-exchange-listed companies—and explicitly disclaims the possibility of producing a paid-terminal-grade global forward-consensus table. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool as a concrete alternative, so routing guidance is not fully explicit.

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