keystats

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not mention return format, data range, units, or any operational caveats, so the description carries little transparency burden and adds no extra behavioral context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'valuation, size, performance metrics' efficiently communicates the core output categories without redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, so the description does not need extensive detail. However, with no output schema and several similar sibling tools, the absence of more specific metrics or a differentiation hint leaves a meaningful ambiguity gap.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'symbol' as an 'IDX ticker,' with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'a company' and the nature of the data as 'valuation, size, performance metrics,' which conveys what the tool returns. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'provides,' and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like financials or ratios, but the parenthetical categories give useful scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use keystats versus related tools such as financials, ratios, or quote. The description implies a data-retrieval purpose but provides no context for selection, no alternatives, and no exclusions.

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