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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: unsupported parameters are ignored with a warning, the endpoint path is given, credit cost is stated, and plan requirements are disclosed. It doesn't describe the response shape, but with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the key distinction from get_metrics_bundle and the unsupported-parameter warning. It packs endpoint, credits, plan requirements, and parameter notes into a compact block. Slightly long, but every sentence earns its place.

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, idempotent metrics tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, what it doesn't accept, when to use it, the endpoint, credits, and plan requirements. The only notable gap is the lack of any description of the response structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a variant of get_metrics_bundle, an agent can infer the response shape from the sibling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context for light_weight_mode (strips audit fields to reduce payload) and notes formula_override requires Pro+, but these are minor additions over the schema. 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 returns the filing-date price-sensitive block from get_metrics_bundle, with no realtime computation. It names the sibling tool it is not (get_metrics_bundle) and explicitly says current_price/current_fx_rate are not accepted, so an agent can distinguish it from the regular bundle without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when you don't need today's market price, for historical filings, batch loads, or when current stock price is irrelevant. It also names the alternative (get_metrics_bundle) and states the condition for choosing it (when realtime metrics are needed).

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