Risk-factors diff

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that it computes a year-over-year diff, but does not detail the output format or whether it compares the most recent two filings. This is adequate but not richly informative beyond annotations.

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 efficient sentence of 10 words with no unnecessary content. It front-loads the key information immediately.

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 tool with one well-described parameter and read-only/open-world annotations, the description captures the essential purpose. However, it could clarify that it compares the two most recent 10-Ks or specify the method of diff presentation. Overall, fairly complete given simplicity.

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' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or formatting guidance beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool compares year-over-year risk-factor (Item 1A) differences between two 10-Ks, using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_section or stocks_filing by specifying a comparative analysis over two filings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_section or stocks_filings. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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