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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the five-year history depth and, critically, that the call consumes credits — a cost constraint an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. The parenthetical country list is slightly wasteful given the schema enum already enumerates countries.

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 should say more about what comes back — it mentions ratios but not the statement types, units, or currency. The country scope also conflicts with the schema enum (PL missing), leaving an agent uncertain about actual coverage.

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 100% and both parameters are well documented in the schema, including the country-specific registration number formats, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning and its country list omits PL, which is actually a minor inconsistency rather than added value.

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?

States a specific verb-less but clear resource: financial statements, up to five years, with ratios, scoped to certain countries. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_company or get_risk, though the country list (SK, CZ, RO) is inconsistent with the schema enum that also includes PL.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for financial data as opposed to company registry or risk lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. The 'Costs credits' note is a useful cost signal but not usage routing.

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