get_sec_facts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions scope restrictions and an optional cross-check but does not explain what the cross-check entails, data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient but lacks important details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but additional context about the cross-check or parameter would improve usability without adding much length.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, the cross-check feature, or how it complements sibling tools like get_financials. An agent needs more context to decide when to invoke this tool.

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_or_cik has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what values are acceptable (e.g., ticker symbol vs CIK number) or provide any formatting guidance. The parameter's purpose is partly inferred from the tool name, but explicit details are missing.

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 clearly specifies the source (SEC EDGAR), scope (US-listed companies / Indian ADRs only), and mentions an optional cross-check feature. It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_financials or get_key_ratios by focusing on company facts from a specific regulatory source.

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 implies usage for US-listed/ADR companies by stating the scope limitation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_financials or analyze_company. No alternative tools are named, and there is no guidance on when not to use it.

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