get_stock_metric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. Beyond that, the description adds critical behavioral context: it is grounded in SEC filings (not a guess), spoken as a natural-language sentence, and restricts to US public companies. This is valuable transparency that goes beyond the structured annotations, especially the non-guessing and source grounding.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose with a specific verb and resource, then gives usage context and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and it is compact without omission. The metric list is repeated from the schema, but it's essential for clarity and doesn't bloat the description.

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 tool with two well-schema'd parameters (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies source (SEC filings), scope (US public companies), allowed metrics, output format (single spoken sentence), and grounding requirement (not a guess). The sibling is known but not needed for this tool's description. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter (metric and company). The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that the metric must be one of the enums and that company can be a name or ticker, which is already in the schema but restated. The description also explains the output as a spoken sentence, which is beyond schema. Given high coverage, a 4 is warranted, not 3, because the description enhances the semantics with the natural-language output constraint.

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 states the tool answers one financial metric for a US public company, cites the regulatory source (SEC 10-K via EDGAR XBRL), and lists the specific allowed metrics. This distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing a single metric and spoken natural-language output. The verb-resource pairing is specific: 'Answer one financial metric'.

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 explicitly says to use for specific spoken questions and gives examples, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_stock_snapshot. The presence of a sibling suggests a possible alternative, but the description doesn't mention when to use the sibling instead. Still, the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it for single-metric queries.

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