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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by noting the data is 'normalized', 'recent', and from 'official SEC XBRL data', which informs expectations about data quality and temporal scope. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond the safety flags.

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, front-loaded sentence containing no filler. It efficiently states the action, the resource, and the data source, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 presence of a detailed input schema, output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient orientation for a retrieval tool. The word 'recent' is somewhat vague regarding time range, but overall the description, combined with structured data, is adequately complete for selecting and invoking the 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 description coverage is 75% (identifier, metrics, periods have descriptions; period_type only has an enum). The description mentions metric categories (revenue, earnings, etc.) which maps to the metrics parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail for identifier, periods, or period_type beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is near the 80% threshold, the description does not need to compensate heavily.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'normalized, recent issuer-reported revenue, earnings, balance-sheet, cash-flow, and diluted-EPS facts from official SEC XBRL data.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling SEC research tools like sec-company-evidence or sec-filing-signals, which focus on broader company/filing data.

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: when needing issuer-reported financial facts from SEC XBRL. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case from the description and sibling tool names.

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