get_company_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful provenance details ('straight from the company's filed XBRL on SEC EDGAR') and that each figure carries its form and filing date. However, it does not address important behavioral aspects like data freshness, coverage for foreign or delisted companies, or error behavior when filings are unavailable.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states what the tool does, the second adds provenance, and the final sentence gives usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant content.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, data source, and usage context. It does not explicitly explain whether it returns a single period or a history, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (symbol) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance the agent's understanding.

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 states the tool's function: 'Headline financials taken straight from the company's filed XBRL on SEC EDGAR' and lists the specific metrics returned (revenue, net income, diluted EPS, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_company_profile by emphasizing that it uses raw filing data rather than a third-party summary.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over get_company_profile when a number has to be right: this is the filing itself, not a third-party summary of it.' This directly states when to use this tool and provides an alternative, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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