dart_get_financial_statements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves financial statements but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with invalid input. The behavioral traits beyond the action are largely absent.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a clear list format for parameter options. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value format, what 'entire financial statements' includes, error conditions, or pagination. Year parameter is unexplained. The description lacks sufficient context for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the allowed values and defaults for 'report' and 'fs_div', and clarifies that 'corp_code' should be obtained from a sibling tool. However, 'year' is not explained (e.g., format, range) and 'corp_code' details are minimal. The description adds some meaning but not for all parameters.

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 retrieves entire financial statements for a single company from OpenDART, which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions a prerequisite (finding corp_code via dart_search_company). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'dart_get_company_disclosures', which could be related.

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 a prerequisite instruction to use dart_search_company first and explains the allowed values for 'report' and 'fs_div'. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dart_get_company_disclosures, nor does it state when not to use it.

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