point_in_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add genuine behavioral context: recast=true returns only changed figures each tagged with the filing it first appeared in, output is rows with columns 'named in the answer,' and 6 tickers work without a key. It omits operational traits like rate limits (only in the schema) and pagination.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (recast mode, the 'compares nothing' caveat, the auth constraint). Sentences are dense and slightly run-on, but there is no filler.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth and recast but leaves the result shape only vaguely defined ('columns named in the answer'), and says nothing about rate limits or how multiple tickers affect output. Adequate, but not complete enough to call the tool blind.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning where the schema is thin: recast=true is defined behaviorally (only values later restated) even though the schema gives it no description. as_of and ticker semantics are left to the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource: as-reported figures from 10-K/10-Q filings accepted on or before as_of, returned as rows. It also carves out its niche against the comparison siblings with 'This tool compares nothing.' It never names pit_changes/pit_fields, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'compares nothing and says nothing about which value is right,' which nudges the agent elsewhere for comparisons, and the demo-key note is a real calling constraint. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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