compare_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core comparison but does not disclose return format, read-only status, how missing values are handled, or how the 'two most recent' values are selected across forms.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and target are immediately visible. It is under-specified semantically, but structurally it is concise and well-organized.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, a one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine how cik and metric should be formatted, what forms are involved, what the comparison result looks like, or how this relates to list_metric_periods.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'metric' to the financial metric and 'SEC' to the company context, but it does not explain the cik parameter, the role of form, or accepted values/formats for any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies the resource ('two most recent SEC values for one financial metric'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_metric_periods, but the compare action is distinct enough for basic selection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_metric_periods, which likely provides the underlying periods/values. The phrase 'two most recent' implies recency context, but the description does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or when another tool should be preferred.

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