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

The annotations only establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: each value includes unit, period, snapshot figures and source document ids; banks use annualised quarterly values; US corporates include annual, quarterly and ttm data with credit/liquidity/forensic metrics; estimates and excluded ratios are explained; and catalogue mode is documented.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the content is dense with little wasted language. The sentences are long and pack multiple concepts together, but they generally earn their place given the tool's complex template, estimate, exclusion and citation behavior.

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 carries most of the return-value explanation, and it does so thoroughly by describing units, periods, source ids, template-specific behavior, estimates, exclusions and catalogue output. It is not fully exhaustive on how from/to/limit interact or what the catalogue response looks like, but the schema covers parameter details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful parameter context, especially ratio-id examples and catalogue behavior, but it states that calling without ratios lists the catalogue while the schema says leaving ratios empty returns all, creating ambiguity about the ratios parameter.

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 identifies the resource as ratios computed from a company snapshot, with stable formula ids such as bank.roe and corp.roic and a bank/corporate template distinction. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_statement, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule: call without ratios to list the catalogue of one frequency. It also explains template and frequency behavior, but does not state when to use this instead of get_statement or get_snapshot_info, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's company id note.

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