get_us_financial_statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that only key rows are extracted (Total Revenue, Net Income, etc.) and specifies default values for statement_type ('income') and period ('annual'). These details help the agent understand what the tool returns and how it behaves with missing parameters.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, gives example queries, explains the key-row behavior, and then lists arguments. It is front-loaded with the essential information. The mix of Korean and English is a minor readability issue, but the structure is clear and every sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the parameters, allowed values, defaults, and the behavior of extracting key rows. It does not mention ticker format or potential limitations, but these are likely standard and covered elsewhere. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It lists all three parameters (ticker, statement_type, period) and provides allowed values and defaults for statement_type and period. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, giving the agent all needed information to construct a valid call.

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 it provides US financial statements (income/balance/cash_flow) and gives example queries. It specifies the resource and three statement types, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_us_financials or get_financial, which could lead to confusion about which tool to choose.

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 gives concrete usage examples in Korean ('AAPL 손익계산서', 'NVDA 현금흐름표', etc.) and states '같은 질문에 사용합니다' (use for questions like these). This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. It is adequate but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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