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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior — that n counts fiscal years rather than rows, and that period_type is normally 'af' but can be 'q4' at fiscal year-end — but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the shape of the returned rows.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic given period_type is not an input parameter, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what a 'row' of financial metrics actually contains and how period_type factors in, but it never does. An agent knows how to call it but not what comes back, leaving a meaningful gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents n, kind, type, and symbol; baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying the counting semantics of n (fiscal years, not rows), but it also references a period_type field that does not appear among the input parameters, which muddies rather than clarifies.

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 and resource ('Get annual financial metric rows'), and the word 'annual' inherently distinguishes it from siblings get_financials_latest and get_financials_ttm. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 by 'annual' — there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_financials_latest or get_financials_ttm. The note that n counts fiscal years and that period_type may be 'q4' at fiscal year-end is a useful operational hint, but it is not a when-to-use guideline.

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