getEnterpriseValues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that results are a historical time series of combined financial fields, which is mild extra context, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or rate limits beyond what the annotations provide.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of row contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only retrieval tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema covers all parameters, the main remaining gap is what a returned row looks like. The description partly fills this by listing the combined fields (price, shares outstanding, market cap, debt, cash), though it omits pagination and output structure since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so symbol, limit, and period are already documented in the schema and the enum is self-explanatory. The description adds no format or syntax detail for any parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (a company's enterprise value history) and enumerates the components of each row, which distinguishes the concept from market-cap siblings like getMarketCap. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The description never explains why an agent would choose enterprise value over getMarketCap, getHistoricalMarketCap, or the DCF valuation tools that appear alongside it in the sibling list.

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