search_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output row granularity ('one row per reported fact') but does not mention pagination, filters, read-only nature, or what data each row contains. This adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and resource, though it could be expanded with usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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?

This is a 14-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description only provides minimal output granularity but does not explain pagination, available filters, or return structure. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without relying on the schema's partial descriptions.

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 only 36% (5/14 params described), so the description must compensate. It does not. The description fails to mention key filter dimensions like company, concept, fiscal year, or period, which are represented in the schema but undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource: 'XBRL company-facts financial concepts across companies.' The parenthetical '(one row per reported fact)' clarifies output granularity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_financials or search_filings.

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 cross-company search via 'across companies,' but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_company_financials or full_text_search. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the usage context only implicit.

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