get_risk_factors

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses conservative extraction, failure mode (returns note and URL instead of guess), and source URL behavior. Could mention auth or rate limits but not critical for this tool.

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: first states core purpose, second adds behavioral nuance. Efficient, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers extraction logic and failure handling. Missing input clarification is a gap, but overall adequate 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?

Only parameter 'query' has 0% schema description coverage. Description does not explain what 'query' represents (e.g., company identifier). Agent must infer from context, risking misuse.

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?

Clearly states it extracts Item 1A 'Risk Factors' from the latest 10-K, specifies the use case 'for risk-signal part of a screen', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_key_financials.

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?

Provides context on when to use ('for the risk-signal part of a screen') and explains the conservative extraction behavior, including how to handle failure (flag to user to open filing). Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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