get_report_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals error behavior ('if missing, an error will prompt you to download and parse') and performance characteristics ('Reading TOC to find a chapter and then reading pages is much slower than direct keyword search'). It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description.

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 well-structured with strategy and critical rules sections, each sentence earning its place. The Args section is redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not detract significantly. Overall it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The description provides strong usage guidance, alternatives, error behavior, and performance considerations. It is missing detailed parameter formats, but given the output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly for most cases.

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% and the description merely lists parameter names without adding any semantics. It does not define what 'form' values are accepted, what date format 'report_date' expects, or how 'ticker' should be provided. The names are self-explanatory to a domain expert, but the description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve the Table of Contents of a report,' and adds that it returns structured section metadata. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming get_report_pages and keyword_search as alternatives for different use cases.

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 guidelines are explicit and thorough. The strategy block states when to use the tool ('when you need an overview or want to read a specific chapter in its entirety'), and the critical rules give a clear when-not-to-use: 'If you only need to locate specific numbers or singular facts, do NOT use this tool. Use keyword_search instead.' It also advises against using it when performance matters.

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