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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: data comes from SEC EDGAR XBRL, every figure includes period_type and a filing link, and the tool reports figures rather than advice.

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 front-loaded with the core action and source, then efficiently covers company mode, screen mode, output characteristics, and scope. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

For a nine-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, both modes, metric scope, and the key output trait that figures carry period_type and filing links. It omits some operational details such as rate limits or pagination behavior, but the schema covers parameter defaults and filters.

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 the schema already explains all nine parameters, including mode, metric, period, company, and filters. The description reinforces the mode distinction and metric examples but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: reads US public company financials from SEC EDGAR XBRL. It clearly distinguishes the two operational modes, company history versus cross-company screening, so an agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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 explains what each mode does and implies when to choose company mode versus screen mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as compare_companies or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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