get_indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: resolution routes by `source_type` across akshare line items, annual-report PDF sections (LLM or registered Python extractor), or locally-computed ratios. This tells the agent the call may trigger extraction or computation rather than a plain lookup. It omits auth/caching/error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the routing detail. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are schema-documented. The description adequately covers what the call does. Minor gap: nothing about what happens when a quarterly request hits a non-akshare source, or what the caller receives on resolution failure.

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 indicator aliasing, period, year, and ticker formats. The description adds only the 'company + period' framing and the routing hint, which is baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('one named financial indicator') with the scoping dimensions (company + period). It is distinguishable from list_indicators and extract_indicators, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings. Clear but not self-differentiating.

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 routing sentence implies this is the single-indicator resolution path, distinguishing it implicitly from the batch-oriented list_indicators/extract_indicators tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the indicator must exist in a rule set), and no guidance on failure cases.

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