company_facts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior of merging filings into a multi-period fact series, but it does not explain how 'most recent' filings are selected, how line items are normalized, or any potential limitations. This is moderate transparency given the absence of 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 a single, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and includes a useful contrast clause. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and is one of many related tools, the description provides only the essential purpose. It lacks guidance on parameter selection, data coverage, and edge cases. While the output schema may handle return values, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 elaborate on any parameters. It only hints at 'multi-period' and 'line item' which might relate to 'periods' and 'max_line_items', but it does not explain the meaning of 'detail', 'source', 'statements', or the exact behavior of the parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema fields themselves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge') and identifies the resource ('a company's most recent structured filings') and the output ('one multi-period fact series per line item'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like filings_list and financials_query by emphasizing consolidated multi-period data rather than individual filings.

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?

The phrase 'instead of one filing at a time' provides implicit usage guidance, suggesting this tool is for aggregating across filings when a per-filing view is insufficient. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of full clarity.

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