company_financial_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behaviors: deduplication to the most recent filing per period, and the inclusion of form type, filing date, and verify_url in each record. This is solid but does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or data ordering.

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 succinct, with three short paragraphs that directly convey purpose, deduplication logic, and record contents. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what each record contains (form type, filing date, verify_url) and the deduplication rule. It lacks details on sorting, error handling, or metric value units, but the core context is covered.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only reinforces the single-company scope implicitly via 'One company'.

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 function: retrieving a single company's reported history of a financial metric. It is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., search_federal_contracts) by focusing on company financials, and the verb+resource structure is specific.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies single-company scope but never states conditions like 'use when you need historical financial data' or contrasts with sibling tools.

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