get_segment_revenue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is filing data (not consolidated) and that it defaults to the latest 10-K. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. Since it's a data-fetch operation, the read-only nature is implied, but the description could be more explicit about behavior beyond the obvious.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The secondary note about filing data and the parameter explanations are efficiently packed into a few lines. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good amount of context: the data source (10-K), the axes, and parameter defaults. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the returned revenue facts or any error conditions, but for a simple read tool it is reasonably complete. A more explicit note on the return format would push it to a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: ticker_or_cik is explained as 'ticker like NVDA or a CIK', and accession is described as 'optional 10-K accession; default is the latest 10-K'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema property names and types, though it could be more precise about CIK format.

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 retrieves dimensioned XBRL revenue facts from the latest 10-K, specifying the axes (product, business, geographic). This is a specific verb+resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (get_trading_symbols, get_form4), but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct enough.

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?

It provides some context: 'This is filing data, not a consolidated income statement' hints at when to use it, and the default accession behavior is described. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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