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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the safety/cost profile ("Free"), states that no figures are returned, and describes the notable behavior of returning both fiscal and calendar readings when they differ. It stops short of stating what happens when Finbolt does not cover the company, whether the call is idempotent/cacheable, or any rate limits, so the mutation/cost dimension is covered but failure behavior is not.

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 critical constraint ("Before you ask for a figure") is front-loaded, and the three resolution targets are listed in a single efficient sentence followed by two short qualifiers. It is dense but every clause carries information; a bulleted structure would have aided scanning.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on scope and semantics instead. All three resolution axes are covered, leaving only the as_of parameter and the not-covered-company case unaddressed, both minor relative to what is supplied.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with examples, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add genuine semantics for period phrases (dual fiscal/calendar readings), but it never mentions the as_of parameter, whose role in anchoring year-less phrases is the subtlest part of 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 clearly enumerates the three things the tool resolves: company identity/coverage from a ticker or CIK, the fiscal-period meaning of a phrase, and the line-item mapping of a concept name. The closing "Returns no figures" sharply separates it from the fetch_*/financials siblings. It loses a point because the verb itself is never stated and it does not distinguish itself from look-alikes such as verify or find_tool.

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 you ask for a figure" gives an explicit trigger point in the workflow, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed for a normalization helper. What is missing is any when-not guidance, e.g. that it should be skipped when the company/period/concept are already unambiguous, or how it relates to verify and get_fact.

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