Exact SEC Metric Recall

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral: 'Server-side verified fact with provenance' indicates trustworthiness, 'SAFE_REFUSAL when missing' clarifies behavior on missing data, and 'No LLM math' warns against using it for calculations. This is rich context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second adds behavioral guarantees, third clarifies a key limitation. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with an output schema and 4 parameters (3 required), the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, and limitations. It omits mention of the optional 'low_tokens' parameter, which is a minor gap. Otherwise, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 mentions the required parameters (company, metric, period) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The optional 'low_tokens' parameter is not addressed. No parameter-specific semantics are added.

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 does 'Exact EDGAR metric recall for company+metric+period,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. The additional context 'No LLM math' and 'Server-side verified fact' distinguishes it from siblings like compute_sec_cagr and lattice_arith_evaluate by emphasizing pure recall without computation.

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 implies usage context through 'No LLM math' and 'Server-side verified fact,' suggesting it should be used when a precise, verified metric is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_sec_cagr or query_financial_sec, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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