Document Summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which already establish safety. The description adds value by specifying the return contents (summary, highlights, risks, guidance, key metrics, links) and the scope (one parsed filing), which is not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential routing information without excess. Every clause contributes to the agent's decision-making.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists return elements. It explains both parameter selection modes and points to alternatives for text retrieval. The tool's complexity is low (no nested objects, few params), and the description covers what an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of doc_id (from list_company_documents) and doc_type (newest of that type) in selection. It also clarifies that symbol is required, though the schema does not enforce a required array—this is a minor inconsistency but still adds guidance. The description compensates beyond the schema.

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 provides an 'investor digest of ONE parsed filing' with summary, highlights, risks, guidance, key metrics, and links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_document by noting it provides a digest rather than raw text, and from get_earnings_call_summary by focusing on parsed filings broadly. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states how to select a document: 'Pass doc_id from list_company_documents, or doc_type for the newest of that type.' It also directs users away from this tool for raw text: 'For the text itself use read_document or download links.markdown_url.' This is clear when-to-use versus when-not-to guidance.

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