Ver historial financiero de una compañía

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the data scope ('last five fiscal years'), which bounds what comes back, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior of the anio filter.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the identifier sentence last. The field enumeration earns its place by telling the agent what is returned, though with an output schema present it is slightly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the resource, the five-year scope and the accepted identifiers. The only real gap is the missing routing guidance versus get_compania_info/search_companias.

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 only reinforces the accepted identifier ('expediente or RUC') and hints at the five-year window, adding little beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One company's Supercías financial history') and enumerates the returned fields (revenue, assets, equity, profit, employees, ratios) plus scope ('last five fiscal years'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_compania_info/search_companias, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Takes expediente or RUC' signals this is the drill-down after identifying a company, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named in the description text as an alternative.

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