get_silent_restatement_diff

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the |diff_pct| descending sort, the meaning of 'silent' (no amendment filed), and the default materiality threshold, though return format is left to the output schema.

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 field list (old_value, new_value, diff_abs, diff_pct, kind, label...) duplicates what the output schema already provides, and the get_amendment_diff sentence is grammatically tangled. The purpose is not front-loaded, and the trigger examples sit at the very end.

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 5-parameter financial tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key filters, the materiality default, sort order, and how it relates to get_amendment_diff. Remaining gaps (entity_id/fiscal_year semantics) are modest given the output schema carries return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains min_diff_pct ('a fraction, default 1%'), names hub_concept_code, and supplies enum-like values for kind ('modified', or 'added' for a newly disclosed figure). However entity_id and fiscal_year get no explanation, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

Names the specific resource ('per-concept silent restatements') and distinguishes it from the sibling get_amendment_diff by the defining trait 'with no amendment filed'. The purpose is inferable, though the opening leads with output fields rather than the action, and the contrast sentence is awkwardly worded ('get_amendment_diff on the other source').

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 concrete use queries ('all silent REVENUE restatements of X', 'material quiet revisions only', 'which filing revised FY2023 and by how much?') and names an alternative tool (get_amendment_diff). It lacks an explicit when-not condition, but the examples make the intended trigger context clear.

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