agm_financials_xml

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

Despite no annotations, description fully discloses behavioral traits: XML parsing, fallback to agm_parse_fallback on failure, decision criteria from agm_manual, and requirement to call corp_identifier if company identification uncertain. Covers mutation aspects and dependencies.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args). Each sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy. Concise yet comprehensive.

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 5 parameters (none required) and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage conditions, fallback behavior, parameter details, and references. Complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section provides complete, clear explanations for all 5 parameters, including defaults, precedence rules (rcept_no over ticker), and format options (json or md).

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?

Description explicitly states the tool provides structured financial statements (BS/IS) with comparison across consolidated/separate and current/prior periods. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like agm_agenda_xml or agm_compensation_xml.

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?

'when' section clearly specifies usage only when user explicitly requests detailed financials (tier-5 Detail), and notes that entering ticker alone triggers automatic search for summons notice. Includes fallback rules and reference to corp_identifier for uncertain identification.

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