Get quality and moat metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description goes beyond by listing computed metrics, explaining parameter effects (e.g., WACC fallback, tax-rate fallback), and stating it uses existing financial statements. No contradiction.

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?

Description is efficient: two sentences that immediately state purpose, list metrics, and note read-only nature. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema), description covers purpose, metrics, parameter behavior, and read-only nature. It does not specify the output format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that ROIC-vs-WACC spread returns null when WACC is omitted and that taxRateFallbackPct only used when reported data missing. This enhances understanding beyond 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 the tool computes annual quality and moat metrics for a single Bullrun ticker, listing specific metrics (ROIC, ROE/ROA, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_financial_history or get_stock_metrics, which handle raw data or different analyses.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for a single ticker but lacks guidance on context or exclusion.

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