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

With no annotations, the description discloses data source (SEC EDGAR XBRL), official nature (10-K figures), historical depth (up to 5 years), and pricing ($0.03 USDC). It does not cover error behavior or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose, but it is somewhat lengthy and contains slight repetition (e.g., two mentions of SEC filings). Still, it is clear and efficient.

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 signature (1 param, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns, the data source, historical depth, and pricing, leaving little ambiguity for basic usage.

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 provides a description for 'ticker', and the description does not add new meaning beyond repeating usage instructions with an example. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 it provides key financials for US-listed companies by ticker from SEC EDGAR XBRL filings, listing specific metrics and historical range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'company-verify' or 'local-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 instructs to 'Pass ticker=' and specifies US-listed companies, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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