company_research_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining that ownership and director-dealing data are omitted due to source coverage differences and cautioning that missing data should not imply no activity. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, though it doesn't cover aspects like error handling or output structure, which are partially addressed by the output schema.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences/paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a crucial caveat. There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary function and a key caveat, but it lacks essential parameter semantics (especially 'source') and doesn't explicitly relate the tool to siblings like filings_list or financials_query. Given the presence of an output schema, return structure is covered, but the absence of parameter guidance is a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 either parameter. The purpose mentions 'recent filings' and 'financial profile' but doesn't clarify what 'source' means (e.g., valid sources, format) or the exact role of 'company_id' beyond its name. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly set the 'source' parameter, which has a default but no enumerated options.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Return recent filings and a compact three-period financial profile.' This clearly identifies the verb (return), the resource (filings and financial profile), and distinguishes it from siblings like filings_list and financials_query. The mention of ownership and director-dealing data being in dedicated tools further differentiates its scope.

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 description provides context that ownership and director-dealing data are intentionally excluded and handled by dedicated tools, which implicitly advises when not to use this tool. It also warns that missing data must not be interpreted as no activity, offering guidance on interpreting results. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools or state 'use this tool when you need a quick brief.'

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