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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It misleads by stating users can obtain financial data including income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements, which contradicts the tool's purpose of listing symbols. It also omits details about output format, pagination, or that only symbols are returned.

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 short but has grammatical issues and a confusing dangling phrase ('are provided'). The first sentence is concise and informative; the second sentence repeats 'financial data' and does not earn its place due to ambiguity.

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?

For a simple no-parameter list tool, the description gives a high-level overview but fails to explicitly state that the output is a list of symbols. The confusing mention of financial data creates uncertainty. With no output schema or annotations, the description should have been clearer about the return value.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the empty schema covers 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about the symbols (companies with financial statements) but does not need to explain parameters.

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: a comprehensive list of companies with available financial statements, via the FMP Financial Statement Symbols List API. It distinguishes this from siblings like getCompanySymbols by specifying the financial statement filter. However, the second sentence ambiguously mentions obtaining financial data, which could imply the tool returns statements rather than symbols.

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?

The description implies use cases: finding companies on major global exchanges with available financial statements. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool, leaving the agent to infer from context. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions.

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