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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the data source restriction (SEC filings alone, no market price), the derivation constraint (observations built only from those figures), the sign convention (negative net debt means net cash), citation behavior, and a cost of 1 credit. It omits permission/auth requirements and error or latency behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the snapshot contains, followed by the optional pricing behavior and the credit cost. The first sentence is dense with a parenthetical and a clause list, but every clause (quarters, observation basis, citations) carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers source, scope, output content, optional-input effect, and cost. The only remaining gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer a narrower sibling like fetch_income_statement or a peer comparison 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters; the description's added value is explaining what supplying price and price_date unlocks (market cap, P/E, price to book), which the schema does not say. Beyond that it adds no format, range, or validation detail for company or price_date.

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 states concretely what the tool returns: revenue, margins, growth, EPS, cash flow, net debt over the last four quarters from SEC filings, plus cited sources. It implicitly differentiates from quote-driven siblings by declaring 'Finbolt uses no market price' and offering optional price inputs for valuation ratios, though it never names an alternative 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?

It positions itself clearly as a 'first look at one company' and gives a conditional rule for the optional price/price_date pair (pass them to get market cap, P/E, price to book). It gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives such as compare_stocks or fetch_income_statement, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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