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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose what data is returned, how parameters affect results, or any operational details beyond the annotations.

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 three-word fragment, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks sentence structure and conveys no actionable information.

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 a generic description, the tool is severely underspecified. The agent has no way to know what ratios are returned, how the period/limit parameters work, or how to interpret the output.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not: 'Financial ratios' provides no meaning for 'symbol', 'limit', or 'period', leaving their roles entirely unexplained.

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 'Financial ratios' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name with a qualifier, lacking a specific verb or resource. It does not indicate that this returns ratios for a symbol or how it differs from sibling tools like key_metrics or financial_growth.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the required symbol parameter, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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