index_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses async job semantics, that a job id is returned, the 20–60 second latency, and the polling tool. It omits auth/permission needs and what happens on re-indexing or failure.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the action, scope, and latency before the polling hint. No wasted wording.

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?

For a 3-param mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return value (job id), the timing expectation, and the follow-up step. Gaps remain around `limit`/`forms` semantics and re-index behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers ticker and the default form (10-K), partially illuminating the `forms` parameter, but says nothing about `limit` or the array syntax/format for forms, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 (index) and resource (latest filings for a ticker), names the default scope (most recent 10-K), and identifies the downstream consumer (ask_filing), which sharply separates it from siblings like search_company and get_financials.

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 tells the agent when this is needed (before ask_filing can use filings) and routes polling to the sibling ingest_status. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or guidance for already-indexed tickers, but the context is otherwise clear.

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