project_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the high-level computation but does not disclose whether this is a pure calculation, how assumptions are applied, whether any external data is fetched, or what edge-case behavior occurs. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral surface is largely underexplained.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resources, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The input schema is self-describing and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. Even so, it omits the key context that this is a forward-looking projection tool distinct from historical statement getters, and it gives no guidance on when to invoke it. The definition is adequate only if the agent relies on the schema and sibling list, not the description alone.

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?

Per the context signal, schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the assumptions object and its defaults/constraints. The description adds no details about the parameters (e.g., that tax_rate is a decimal or that ebit_margin defaults to 0.18), so it contributes no semantic value beyond the 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?

The description uses the verb 'Project' with explicit financial outputs (revenue, EBIT, NOPAT, unlevered free cash flow), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_income_statement and calculate_dcf. It could be slightly stronger by saying 'forecast' or 'based on assumptions,' but it is not vague or tautological.

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 mention of when to use this tool over alternatives. The sibling names suggest a projection-vs-historical distinction, but the description never states that this is a forward-looking model or that get_* tools should be used for historical data. Agents must infer usage from the tool name.

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