get_company_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (SEC EDGAR, XBRL), the fields returned, and the conditional 'when available' for TTM values. It also uses neutral, read-only verbs ('Get', 'retrieves'). However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, or any edge cases beyond availability, so it is adequate but not rich.

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: two short sentences plus a single-parameter arg list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, follows with the secondary data, and ends with a clear parameter explanation. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, data source, and conditional availability. It does not explicitly orient the user relative to sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that the missing guidance is a minor gap, not a critical omission.

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 single parameter 'ticker' has no schema description (0% schema coverage), but the description compensates with an 'Args' section: 'Stock ticker symbol, e.g. "AAPL"'. This fully explains the parameter's meaning and format, adding value beyond the bare schema field.

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 opens with 'Get basic company facts from SEC EDGAR' and explicitly lists CIK, name, and registered tickers, then adds TTM revenue and net income. This clearly identifies the tool's specific function and differentiates it from siblings like get_income_statement or get_balance_sheet, which target detailed financial 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 scope is implied ('basic company facts') but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives. Since siblings exist for detailed financials, the description hints at a quick-overview use case but fails to state it directly or note exclusions.

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