get_sec_financials

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing data provenance, the fair-access requirement via SEC_USER_AGENT, absence of an API key requirement, and how missing data is surfaced ('marked unavailable or carries warnings'). That is meaningful operational context an agent cannot get from the annotations, though it does not quantify rate limits or latency.

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 most decision-relevant content (what is returned and the coverage caveat) is front-loaded in the first two sentences, with provenance and Args/Returns following in a predictable structure. The Returns section partly restates the output schema, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is padded or circular.

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 single-parameter read tool with a published output schema, the definition supplies nearly everything needed: sources, edge-case handling, auth/environment requirements, and a return summary. The one genuine gap is routing guidance against the heavily overlapping financials siblings, which the description leaves entirely implicit.

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 the single property has no description, so the description must carry the load — and it does, defining 'symbol' as a US stock ticker with concrete examples ('AAPL', 'MSFT'). The US-only constraint is real added meaning beyond the bare string type, though it stops short of specifying case, suffix, or exchange-qualified formats.

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 ('Get SEC financials') and enumerates the exact data classes returned: up to five annual fiscal years, quarterly facts, derived TTM, earnings quality, and segment revenue. It is clearly not a portfolio or price tool, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_financials, get_ttm_financials, or get_key_metrics, which overlap heavily in scope.

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 conveys useful invocation context: coverage caveats ('quarters/TTM/segments are not guaranteed'), the underlying sources (CompanyFacts, 10-K/10-Q, amended forms), and that no API key is required. However, in a sibling set containing get_financials, get_ttm_financials, and get_key_metrics, it gives no explicit rule for when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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