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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: figures are served exactly as filed, derived=true figures are not stated in the filing and were computed from two stated figures, and a missing period means nothing was filed rather than zero. These are non-obvious data semantics an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape before the parameter, and every sentence carries information (id source, as-filed semantics, derived flag, missing-period meaning). The middle sentences are dense and could be split, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden: it explains the ordering, source citations per figure, the derived flag, and the missing-period interpretation. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and the schema description already says node_id is the graph node id from search_companies, not entity_id. The description repeats rather than extends that, so the baseline 3 applies for a single fully documented parameter.

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?

States a specific resource and scope (every financial figure for one company, newest reporting period first) and pins down the identifier source. It clearly distinguishes itself from company_profile and search_companies by naming the id each one carries.

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?

It routes the agent correctly by tying node_id to search_companies hits and warning against company_profile's entity_id, which implies the workflow. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer company_financing or company_public_funding over this tool.

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