get_financial_statements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a read operation ('Get') and lists report contents, but it fails to disclose that report_type controls which portion is returned, that the default is summary, or what the response looks like. The claim of a 'complete' snapshot conflicts with the schema's summary default.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The word 'complete' is potentially misleading, but structurally it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important operational details: report_type behavior, default value, response shape, and how this differs from get_trial_balance or get_ledger_statement. An agent could easily call it with defaults and receive only a summary while believing it requested complete statements.

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 schema already documents as_on_date and report_type (67% coverage). The description adds high-level report components like Net Profit/Loss and Balance Sheet, but it does not clarify how report_type selects among them or explain company_id beyond what the name implies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource: financial statements for a company as of a specific date, listing the included statements. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_trial_balance or get_ledger_statement, but the resource is distinctive enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trial_balance or get_ledger_statement, and no exclusions are provided. The phrase 'as on a specific date' implies a use case, but it never states why one would choose this over sibling report tools.

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