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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the output structure (fields and stamps) and the required period parameter, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 single well-organized sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists key fields, mentions the stamps, and then gives usage guidance. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has a rich schema and an output schema (as indicated), and the description covers purpose, usage, and field details. It doesn't explicitly state that a company identifier (ticker or cik) is needed, but the schema makes that clear. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 all 9 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though it does highlight that `period` is required and lists its enum values. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 statements for one company and enumerates the key fields, making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that for all three statements at once, one should use get_financial_financials, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 a concrete use case ('Use it for the revenue-to-earnings walk') and explicitly names the alternative tool for combined statements. This is clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. its siblings.

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