get_us_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data it returns (P/E, PEG, P/B, ROE, margins, etc.) but does not disclose data source, update frequency, currency, or limitations. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then provides example queries and a compact list of returned metrics, followed by the Args note. The English/Korean repetition is minor and aids clarity for bilingual queries, so no sentence feels wasted.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to specify the ticker. An output schema exists and the annotations handle safety semantics. Missing details like data source or refresh cadence would be nice but are not required for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explicitly defines ticker as a US ticker and gives the example 'AAPL', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. It could add formatting or validation guidance, but for a single ticker parameter the provided semantics are sufficient.

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 states a specific resource and scope: US stock financials and valuation ratios (PER, PBR, PEG, ROE, dividend). It also lists the metrics returned, which separates it from price, chart, earnings, and news tools among the siblings. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling alternative.

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 example queries such as 'AAPL PER', 'Apple 재무', 'NVDA valuation', and 'forward P/E', making it clear when an agent should choose this tool. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer a sibling like get_us_financial_statement or get_financial, so it stops short of a full 5.

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