get_periodic_report

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. While it explains the scope (29 sections), it does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when data is missing. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with essential information front-loaded. Examples and alternative tool mention are concise. 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's scope, key parameter options, and provides an alternative for full text. Lacks output format or error handling details, but sufficient for a retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%. The description adds value by grouping report_type enum values into categories (shareholders, executives, etc.) and providing an example. It compensates for the coverage gap by explaining the meaning of the key parameter beyond the schema.

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 states it retrieves 29 detailed sections of a periodic report via a single tool call using the report_type enum, with specific examples (e.g., largest shareholder, executive compensation). It also distinguishes the sibling tool download_document for full 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?

Description explicitly states when to use this tool (for specific sections) and when not to (use download_document for full text). No ambiguity.

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