load_fundamentals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the payload shape and the 'omit symbols = load all filings' scoping behavior, which is useful, but it never states whether loading replaces or appends to the `fundamentals` table, what permissions/network access are needed, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and destination table, followed by the sibling exclusion and the default-scope note. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers target table, loaded fields, and default scoping for a single-parameter tool. The main residual gap is the write semantics (overwrite vs append) that an agent populating a table would want to know.

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, and it does handle the single parameter well: 'Omit symbols to load all filings' explains that symbols is an optional filter whose absence broadens scope to everything. It does not specify the expected symbol format, but the semantics of the one parameter are otherwise clear.

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 (load) plus the resource (filed financial reports) and the exact target table, even enumerating the loaded columns (year, type, period, posting date, document link). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling load_screener, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

It clarifies when the tool is NOT appropriate ('Not valuation metrics — those are in `screener`') and documents the default behavior when symbols is omitted. Clear routing context, though it does not address the other loading siblings (load_prices, load_index) or any prerequisites for repeated loads.

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