Financials

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authoritative source (XBRL data in the company's filings) and clarifies that values are as-reported rather than derived, which is useful context, but it says nothing about coverage gaps, rate limits, or fallback behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and an em-dash separating fields from the mode distinction. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and the concept-vs-default behavior for both parameters. It is essentially complete for calling the tool; only sibling routing is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that omitting 'concept' yields the most recent values while supplying one us-gaap concept returns full history, and names example concepts. That behavioral distinction is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('reported financial facts for a company from XBRL data in its filings') and enumerates the concrete metrics returned. It distinguishes itself by domain (XBRL facts, not filings lists or entity identity), but never names a sibling tool to route against.

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 clause 'most recent reported values, or the full history of one specific us-gaap concept' implicitly tells the agent the two usage modes and which one the optional concept parameter selects. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like company_lookup or recent_filings, so the routing is left to inference.

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