transcripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns either transcripts or SEC filings based on availability, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, output format, or what the returned data contains (e.g., does it return an id for use elsewhere?). The reference to 'id' is a behavioral hint but is under-explained.

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 sentence and front-loads the core purpose. However, the phrase 'Use `id` with transcript_text' is tacked on and unclear, breaking the logical flow. It is concise but not well-structured, as the important instruction about 'id' is ambiguous and not integrated with the tool's input.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clearly explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It explains the fallback between transcripts and SEC filings, but does not specify the response format, whether it returns metadata or full text, or how the 'id' relates to the transcript_text tool. The agent is left uncertain about how to proceed after calling this tool, making it incomplete.

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 a single required parameter 'symbol' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'symbol' means (presumably a ticker symbol) but instead mentions an 'id' parameter that is not part of the schema. This introduces confusion and fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, actually making parameter semantics worse.

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 provides company results, either earnings call transcripts or SEC filings depending on vendor availability. It is specific about the resource and the fallback logic, which helps distinguish it from related tools like transcript_text, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling as an alternative.

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 implies when to use it (when reading company results) and mentions a conditional based on vendor availability, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or direct the agent to alternatives like transcript_text for full transcript text. The instruction 'Use `id` with transcript_text' hints at a workflow but is ambiguous.

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