get_multi_acnt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what format the analysis returns, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description only states what analysis is performed, not how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, though it could benefit from being more front-loaded with key usage 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?

For a financial analysis tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like, how to interpret results, or what happens with the optional 'fs_div' parameter. The description leaves too many behavioral and contextual questions unanswered.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 75% coverage). It doesn't explain how parameters like 'corp_code' or 'fs_div' relate to the analysis described. With decent schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the 25% gap in schema documentation.

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 purpose: analyzing group-wide financial health and profitability structure based on consolidated financial statements. It specifies the resource (group financial statements) and the analysis type (health and profitability), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_single_acnt' or 'get_multi_index'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_single_acnt' (for single accounts) or 'get_multi_index' (for multi-index analysis), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for this consolidated financial analysis tool.

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