historical_facts_query

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'locally stored' and 'restatement-aware semantics' which hints at data locality and restatement handling, but it does not explain what restatement-aware means, whether results reflect as-reported or restated values, or any side effects. The description is vague and fails to disclose important details about output behavior or constraints.

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 that concisely states the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. It is appropriately brief for a simple query tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of essential details.

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 five parameters, an enum, and restatement-aware semantics, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the view modes, the as_of date behavior, or the meaning of codes and limit. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to explain how to use the tool, which it does not. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without external documentation.

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 adds no explanation of the five parameters (view, as_of, codes, limit, company_id). The enum for 'view' and the date logic for 'as_of' are left completely unexplained. The description's phrase 'restatement-aware semantics' does not translate to parameter meaning, leaving the agent to guess how to set parameters correctly.

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 states the tool queries locally stored filing facts, with the specific qualifier 'restatement-aware semantics' indicating a key differentiator from sibling tools like company_facts or financials_query. The verb 'query' plus the resource 'filing facts' makes the core purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selecting this over sibling tools. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and parameters.

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