analyze_taiwan_stock_financial_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool summarizes data, but does not mention that it is read-only, requires authentication, or is non-destructive. The agent cannot infer safety or performance traits.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief given the lack of supplementary information. It fits in length but sacrifices clarity on parameters and usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not specify what the summary includes or how the lookback_years parameter affects results. Given the presence of similar sibling tools, more context is needed for the agent to choose correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptions for the two parameters. The tool description does not explain what stock_id (e.g., format) or lookback_years (e.g., how it affects the analysis) mean, leaving the agent without critical usage details.

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 summarizes profitability, balance-sheet strength, and cash generation, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_taiwan_stock_financial_reports (raw data) and analyze_taiwan_stock_fundamental (broader analysis), though it could be more explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as when a quick summary is preferred over detailed reports. The description lacks any conditions or exclusions.

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