Get quality and moat metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' line is redundant. The one genuinely additive signal is that metrics are derived from already-stored financial statements, though the description says nothing about behavior when statement data is missing or how years of history interact with coverage 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?

Front-loads verb and resource, then a dense but purposeful metric list; the trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with annotations. One long sentence is heavy but no clause is wasted.

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 no output schema, the enumerated metric list effectively stands in for a return-value description, which is the right compensation. What remains uncovered is failure behavior for tickers lacking sufficient statement history, but for a scoped read-only compute tool this is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so ticker formatting, years bounds, and the WACC/tax-rate fallbacks are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the supplied-WACC dependency ('ROIC-vs-supplied-WACC') but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline-3 case.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Compute') plus a named resource ('annual quality, moat, earnings-quality, and capital-allocation metrics') scoped to 'one exact Bullrun ticker', and enumerates the concrete metrics produced. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_stock_metrics (point-in-time ratios) and get_financial_history (raw statements).

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?

Implies the use case ('from existing financial statements' for a single ticker) but never states when to choose this over get_stock_metrics or get_financial_history, nor any prerequisites such as needing statement coverage. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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