get_financial_concept

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions input types (friendly name or raw XBRL tag), that it returns the annual series, and which tag matched. It doesn't discuss side effects or auth, but for a read-only data fetch this is adequate. The 'escape hatch' framing sets expectations.

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, no fluff. Front-loaded with 'Flexible escape hatch' to set context. Every word adds value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly sufficient but missing explanation of `query`. It connects to the sibling tool and explains the main parameter. Could improve by clarifying what `query` is (e.g., company ticker or CIK).

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains `metric_or_tag` with examples (friendly names like 'revenue' and raw tags like 'ResearchAndDevelopmentExpense'). However, the `query` parameter (presumably a company identifier) is not explained, and `years` is only hinted at by 'annual series'. Partial 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 states it fetches 'annual series for a single financial concept' and distinguishes itself from the curated `get_key_financials` by being a flexible escape hatch for concepts not covered there. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'financial concept' are specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the curated get_key_financials set doesn't cover something the user asks about.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the sibling alternative.

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