financial_analysis__profitability_ratios

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The agent has no clue about the output or safety.

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?

Though very brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary information in an efficient manner.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent completely in the dark about what profitability ratios are calculated or how to interpret results. It is wholly inadequate.

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?

Parameter names like revenue and net_income are self-explanatory, but with 0% schema coverage and no description elaboration, the agent gains no additional meaning. No units or constraints are mentioned.

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 is essentially the tool name, providing no specific verb or resource. It does not differentiate from other ratio tools or state what specific profitability ratios are computed. This is a tautology.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With many sibling ratio tools, the description fails to help the agent choose this tool over alternatives like liquidity_ratios or dupont.

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