Query Certified SEC Facts

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description goes beyond by disclosing the SAFE_REFUSAL behavior, making clear the tool will refuse to invent numbers, and explaining how currency conversion works. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool can handle non-monetary queries or what constitutes an unsupported question, but overall it adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise, packing critical guidance into just three sentences. The first sentence states purpose, the second covers the key refusal behavior, and the third handles currency defaults. Every sentence adds unique value, and the structure fronts the most important information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (handling return values), 100% schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description provides a strong frame for usage. It covers core behaviors (refusal, currency conversion) and usage tips. However, it could further elaborate on what types of queries are in-scope (e.g., supports only numeric financial facts, not textual descriptions) and whether the low_tokens parameter significantly changes output structure. Slight gap for a tool with 4 parameters and 1 requirement.

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 each parameter already has a schema-level description. The tool description adds value by explaining the interplay between parameters (e.g., how target_currency and usd_only relate) and providing usage context like 'in USD' in the query. This enriches the semantics beyond the schema, though not every nuance is covered (e.g., what happens if both target_currency and usd_only are set).

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 uses the specific phrase 'Certified SEC fact query' and clarifies the unique nature of the output: 'Returns verified values with provenance or SAFE_REFUSAL.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compute_sec_cagr or query_sec_metric_exact, and states what the tool does with a specific verb ('query') and resource ('Certified SEC facts').

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 tells when to use this tool and what to expect: 'Does not invent numbers. Treat SAFE_REFUSAL as success-of-honesty, not a tool failure.' It also provides guidance on currency handling: 'Monetary answers default to the filer's reporting currency; request FX conversion via target_currency / usd_only or natural-language 'in USD'.' This is comprehensive guidance that helps an agent decide and avoid misuse.

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