Compare Companies

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description discloses significant behavioral traits: normalization of metrics, deduplication of data, reliance on annual filings, and the generation of per-category winners. These details help the agent anticipate output characteristics and data provenance, exceeding the annotation-only baseline.

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 four short sentences, each adding value: core purpose, metrics compared, output behavior, and data source. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the simple parameter schema, helpful annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose, the metrics involved, and data characteristics. However, it does not specify the returned data structure or format, which would be valuable for an agent expecting to parse the response. Thus, it is complete enough but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'ciks' with min/max constraints and a clear description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond echoing the 2-5 company range, so the score remains at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('compares') and resource ('companies'), with a defined scope of 2-5 companies and enumerated metric categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_financial_metric by emphasizing multi-company side-by-side comparison and winner identification.

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 context for when to use this tool (comparing multiple companies with normalized financial metrics) and implies exclusions via 'annual filings' and deduplication. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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