Risk-factors diff

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

The description fully explains the behavior: it computes the diff between two most recent annual reports, highlighting changes. Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds no contradictions, only enriching understanding.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: main functionality, usage guidance, and alternative tool reference.

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 parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it produces, and when to use an alternative. Nothing is missing.

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?

There is one parameter (ticker) with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description ('US equity ticker, e.g. AAPL.'), so baseline score applies.

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 states a specific action: compute year-over-year diff of risk factors (10-K Item 1A), highlighting added, removed, and changed language. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool stocks_section by providing an alternative for raw text.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use it ('to see how disclosed risks evolved') and provides an alternative for raw text ('use stocks_section with section 'risk-factors''). This gives clear context for selection among siblings.

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