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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing that results are 'certified' and 'dynamically derived from SEC filing SIC codes and 10-K business segment disclosures.' This explains the data source and derivation logic beyond what annotations cover, without contradicting them.

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: the first covers what the tool does and its derivation, the second gives usage context. No redundancy, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description explains the peer group derivation and primary use case, which complements the existing output schema and readOnlyHint annotation. It does not cover error scenarios or details about limit/period parameters, but the schema fills those gaps. Overall adequate for a dynamic screening tool with rich structured data.

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 baseline is 3. The description indirectly relates sector_or_industry and metrics parameters ('SIC codes', 'XBRL metrics') but does not add any new syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond the schema descriptions. No extra value is provided for the remaining parameters.

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 the tool returns 'certified SEC EDGAR XBRL metrics across an industry peer group' and specifies the dynamic derivation method using SIC codes and 10-K disclosures. This distinguishes it from siblings like query_sec_metric_exact (which likely targets single companies) and query_financial_sec (a broader name).

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 explicitly advises 'Use this for sector screening or when no specific company ticker is provided.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition and implies an alternative scenario (having a ticker). It does not name specific sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient and not misleading.

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