get_bdc_nonaccrual

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source. It discloses that the tool returns the filer's tagged status, not Fitch PCDR or PIK, and that data is cited to the filing. However, it does not describe the output shape or any error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 relatively short but fragmented across five sentences. The sentence 'Operating companies like NVDA raise.' is ambiguous and incomplete. Front-loading the purpose is good, but the structure is not polished.

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?

No output schema and no annotations means more burden on the description. It lacks any indication of what fields the result contains, what accession controls, or what happens for an invalid ticker. The description covers key conceptual distinctions but not operational details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters. It explains ticker_or_cik must be an SEC BDC 814-filer, and implies form accepts 10-K or 10-Q. It gives no meaning for the accession parameter, so compensation is incomplete.

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?

States a specific resource: non-accrual investments from SEC BDC 10-K/10-Q filings, with citations. Clearly distinguishes from siblings which are about trading symbols, segment revenue, and form4 filings. The tool's domain is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use this instead of guessing private-credit quality.' Also provides an exclusion: 'Operating companies like NVDA raise.' It does not reference sibling tools, but the guidance about what data to use and which companies qualify is clear.

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