get_financial_fact

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Retrieve', implying a read operation. It does not mention the required contact_email (likely for SEC rate limits), the meaning of the 'years' parameter, or any other behavioral nuances.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and source, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no annotations, the description offers minimal context. It does not explain how 'years' affects the history length, what the 'concept' parameter refers to, or clarify the output, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. Terms like 'cik', 'concept', and 'years' are left undefined, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for a financial domain.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('annual US-GAAP financial history from SEC EDGAR'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_sec_company_facts, and the term 'financial history' is somewhat generic without mentioning the specific 'concept' parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sec_company_facts or get_company_financials. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing usage or exclusions.

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