ask_filing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that figures are sourced from XBRL and that answers come back with citations, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of saying what happens when a ticker is not indexed (error? empty result?), how many filings/years can be covered, or anything about latency or limits.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the capability and then the precondition. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence ('Figures come from XBRL') borders on trivia an agent rarely needs.

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?

No output schema, so describing the citation format is appropriate and partially substitutes for one; the indexing precondition covers the main operational gotcha. Gaps remain around the optional fiscal_years parameter and failure behavior for unindexed tickers, but the core picture is present.

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 0% and there are three parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the intent of 'tickers' ('one or more companies') and hints at fiscal scope via the citation fields, but never explains fiscal_years semantics — notably that its default is null, presumably meaning all years.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Answer a question from one or more companies' SEC filings') and even characterizes the output shape (citations with section, form, fiscal year, sec.gov URL). It does not contrast itself with plausible siblings such as get_financials or compare_companies, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite — 'Requires the ticker to be indexed' — which usefully points at index_company/ingest_status, but it never states when to choose ask_filing over get_financials or compare_companies, nor any exclusions. Usage is therefore implied rather than specified.

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