get_financial_facts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that lookups come from structured XBRL, that concepts map to one or more US-GAAP tags, and that the response names the answering tag because exact definition matters. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior, but those are secondary for a read-only lookup.

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 longer than minimal but front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence adds value: the concept vocabulary, the tag explanation, and the annual/quarterly switch. The concept list is the only bulk, and it is directly useful for choosing the 'concept' parameter.

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?

For a 4-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the main parameters and behavioral context well. The main gap is the unstated meaning of 'periods' and company identifier format, but defaults and the concept list make the tool callable without guessing.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description partially compensates by listing the valid 'concept' values and explaining 'annual' vs 'annual=false'. However, it does not explain the 'periods' parameter (beyond 'recent periods') or how 'company' is identified, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Look up a reported financial figure across recent periods, from structured XBRL data.' It clearly positions this as the tool for extracting numeric facts and distinguishes it from the sibling filing/search tools, whose scope is prose and document navigation.

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?

'Use this for any number — it is far more reliable than reading figures out of filing prose' is an explicit when-to-use directive with a warning against the alternative. It also gives parameter-level guidance: annual by default, 'set annual=false for every period as reported, including quarters.'

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