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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds value by clarifying it returns only requested fields and is a read-like search despite the destructive hint. It describes the output structure (search_results with one row per ticker and period) and notes it avoids pulling full statements, which is useful behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with the key points front-loaded. It explains the purpose, then parameters, then output, then usage guidance, with no redundant filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema and annotations provide some context, but the description fills gaps by explaining the shape of the result and how to handle uncertainty about line item names. It is complete for an agent to decide when to use this tool and what to expect from it.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description reinforces key parameter semantics: it explicitly mentions tickers and line_items are required arrays, and the period values (annual, quarterly, ttm) and limit. It also clarifies that item names match statement field names, aiding correct parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 it pulls named financial line items across multiple companies in a single call, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_financial_financials. It specifies the resource (financial line items) and the action (search), and contrasts with single-company statements.

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 explicit usage context: it's for building comparison tables across companies and mentions that for a single company you should use get_financial_financials. It also suggests looking up field names in the statement tools if unsure, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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