get_company_facts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns financial facts from filings, which implies a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the return values. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's complexity (read operation with 2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) due to no annotations and no output schema. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters ('company' and 'taxonomy'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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's purpose: 'Get all XBRL financial facts for a company' specifies the verb (get) and resource (XBRL financial facts), and 'Returns revenues, assets, liabilities, and other financial metrics from filings' elaborates on the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_financial_metric' (single metric) and 'get_company_filings' (filings rather than facts), but does not explicitly contrast them, so it's not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_financial_metric' for single metrics or 'list_common_metrics' for metric definitions, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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