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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description reveals data sources (annual report, quarterly report, current-report exhibit), fiscal calendar usage, actual dollar/split-adjusted share units, and the behavior that section names vary by company. This is valuable operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides rationale, data sources, units, and usage strategy. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return contents (statements, periods, segment/per-share figures), units, and even suggests a discovery call to handle variable section names. It gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool effectively and understand the response.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (ticker and sections) with descriptions. The description adds semantic guidance for the sections parameter by noting it should be omitted initially and that unknown names return valid lists, which is useful beyond the schema's generic description.

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 explicitly states the tool returns income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, segment revenue, and per-share figures assembled from SEC filings. It clearly identifies the resource and content, distinguishing it from siblings that handle other company data (events, key figures, narrative).

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 explicitly recommends preferring this tool over manually building statements from EDGAR or CompanyFacts, and instructs calling with no sections first for discovery. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the provided context is clear for when to use it.

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