compare_peer_companies

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 the return type (side-by-side comparison of key metrics) and limits (up to 10 companies). However, it does not mention any behavioral details like rate limits, authorization, or response structure, which is acceptable for a read-only comparison tool.

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 well-structured with bullet points and use cases, front-loading the purpose. While slightly long, every section adds value for an agent.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers what can be compared, use cases, and return type. It lacks output schema details, but that is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by listing example metrics and categories, but the schema already explains the parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool compares key financial metrics across multiple companies, with specific metrics and use cases listed. It distinguishes from siblings like get_quote (single company) and search_ticker (ticker search).

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 clear use cases (e.g., 'Compare Apple, Microsoft, and Google financials') and specifies that it returns side-by-side comparison. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools gives implicit guidance.

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