Growth (YoY / QoQ)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful computation semantics: growth is relative to the absolute value of the previous period, so loss-to-profit swings are signed correctly. This goes beyond the schema and is valuable for interpreting results correctly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two tight sentences, with the core computation stated first and the important sign-handling caveat immediately appended. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 robust annotations, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adds the main missing behavioral nuance, the sign convention, and clarifies that the tool is the authoritative computed source. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on selecting this tool over sibling metrics tools, but the core invocation information is adequate.

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 83%, so parameters are mostly self-documenting. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond emphasizing one metric, leaving metric, ticker, periods, frequency, comparison, and disclosure_id semantics to the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies a specific operation: computing period-over-period change for one metric, including current/previous values, absolute and percentage change. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the one-metric scope and the computed-here-not-by-the-model line help distinguish it from raw financials, history, and multi-metric comparison tools.

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?

Computed here, not by the model implies the agent should call this tool rather than calculate growth itself, and one metric suggests it is aimed at single-series growth rather than multi-metric comparisons. However, it provides no explicit contrast with get_financials, get_metric_history, or compare_financials, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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