discover_company_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns a list of available XBRL concepts with data counts, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The description is adequate but not rich for a discovery tool.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a tip in a dedicated tag, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the tip and returns slightly repeat 'available XBRL concepts'. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage hint, parameter meanings, and return value. It could mention that the optional search_term has no default behavior in the description, but the schema fills that gap. For the tool's complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the schema only provides type and default. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'identifier' is a company ticker symbol or CIK number, and 'search_term' filters metrics by name. This significantly aids understanding beyond the schema.

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 discovers available financial metrics for a company, specifically XBRL concepts. It uses specific verb 'discover' and resource 'financial metrics', and the tip distinguishes it from sibling tool get_key_metrics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a tip to use this tool before get_key_metrics, offering clear guidance on when to use it relative to a sibling. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, missing a small point for completeness.

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