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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: that money is in actual dollars (not thousands/millions), that foreign issuers are converted at each period's recorded rate, and that splits are adjusted. This is meaningful disclosure of format and conversion semantics for a read-only 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 front-loaded 'How to read...' framing is effective, but the body is one dense, sprawling sentence-set with redundant restatement of units ('actual dollars, not millions' repeated in the closing paragraph). It is oversized for a metadata lookup and would benefit from trimming repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return contents – and it does so thoroughly, enumerating every category of convention returned. Given its complexity and length, it is nearly complete, with only minor overlap and no pagination/shape notes.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not add syntax or semantics for 'ticker' or 'record'; it only indirectly references periods via list_periods, so no lift over the schema.

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 opens with a specific framing – 'How to read a company's numbers before comparing or converting them' – and enumerates the resources returned (units, currency, ADR ratio, splits, fiscal calendar, accounting basis). An agent can tell this is a metadata/conventions lookup distinct from get_financials or get_statements. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the list_periods pointer, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'before comparing or converting them' clearly signals the moment to call this tool – ahead of comparison or conversion work, i.e. before compare_companies. It also routes the agent to list_periods for period dates. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative tool for the conventions themselves, so it stays at 4.

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