get_capital_allocation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific data components without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like (e.g., time periods, units, structure), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error handling or data sources. For a financial data tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'company_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying it retrieves data for a company. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical capital allocation'), listing the specific components it retrieves (buybacks, dividends, debt repayment, M&A, capex). It distinguishes itself from generic company tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar financial data tools like 'get_financials' or 'get_metrics'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company_id from 'search_companies'), nor does it suggest when to choose this over other financial data tools like 'get_financials' or 'get_metrics' that might overlap in scope.

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