investor_relations_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses constraints up front: respects robots.txt, never logs in, never executes JavaScript, and never bypasses a paywall. This gives an agent accurate expectations about limitations and safety without relying on structured metadata.

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-load the core operation and then list the key constraints. There is no filler, and every clause adds a distinct fact (source, Tier A scope, robots/paywall restrictions).

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers source, scope, and behavioral limits, and implies the returned classification categories. It does not explicitly describe the return shape or failure behavior, but that is not necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has one required string parameter 'ticker' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add ticker-format or source-exchange detail. The parameter is nonetheless self-explanatory in context (the tool resolves it via yfinance), so the omission is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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 precise operation ('Find and classify a company's investor-relations page'), specifies the source ('its public website (yfinance's `info.website`)'), and enumerates the content categories covered (annual/quarterly reports, earnings releases, guidance, presentations, press releases). The 'Tier A: the company's own site' qualifier separates it from filing- or data-tool siblings without requiring the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: for a company's own-site IR page sourced from yfinance's website field, and only within Tier A scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of...', so it stops short of a 5.

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