dart_financial

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. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the data is real-time/historical. For a financial data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states the core purpose and scope. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from resource listing. Every word 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?

For a financial data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the financial statements come in (structured data, PDFs, etc.), whether multiple periods are returned, or what authentication/rate limits apply. The agent would need to guess about the return format and operational constraints.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the significance of the report codes, format expectations, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Retrieve financial statements for a Korean company from DART' with specific resources listed (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dart_disclosure' by focusing on financial statements rather than general disclosures. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other financial data tools like 'fmp_financial' or 'finnhub_query' beyond the DART source.

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 when to prefer this over other financial data tools (e.g., 'fmp_financial', 'finnhub_query') or when to use 'dart_disclosure' instead. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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