get_ticker_research

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

Annotations already cover read-only/no-destroy safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: data comes from SEC EDGAR and unofficial yfinance, refresh is explicit, and ok=false is surfaced as a tool error naming the problem. It stops short of disclosing rate limits, caching/staleness windows for refresh, or the cost of 'full' detail, which keeps it below 5.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and information-dense, but the remainder is a long run-on block that duplicates the detail-level rules already present in the schema and buries the freshness rule mid-paragraph. No outright waste, but structure and layering could be sharper.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still helpfully maps the top-level envelope and section names (sec_financials, yfinance_metrics, factors, freshness), which is appropriate for a multi-source aggregation tool. The gaps are the undocumented 'confirmed_only' and 'refresh' semantics rather than return-value description.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate, yet it elaborates mainly on 'detail' levels that the schema already documents in comparable detail, and mentions 'refresh' only in passing ('explicit refresh'). 'confirmed_only' is never explained anywhere, and 'symbol' is left implicit.

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 concrete resource ('Issuer facts and explainable factors for one US ticker') and scope boundaries ('no account access or orders'), which helps separate it from portfolio/order siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_stock_snapshot, get_sec_financials or get_technical_indicators, which appear to return portions of the same data.

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?

There is one useful usage rule: 'For prices now/today/intraday use freshness, not the factors' bar dates', which governs interpreting output. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools that expose quotes, candles, SEC financials or indicators, and no routing to get_ticker_research_status.

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