fin.export_financial_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that data is exported as 'structured data' but does not specify the output format (e.g., JSON, CSV), pagination, rate limits, whether it's synchronous, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for an export tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a list of report types. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'structured data' means in terms of return format (e.g., JSON, CSV). It provides enough context for the report types and date filter but omits details about the response structure, which is critical for an export tool. Missing behavior like whether the export is immediate or asynchronous.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (report_type and date_range) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by enumerating valid values for report_type (invoices, expenses, payment_methods, payroll) and providing an example for date_range ('2026-01 to 2026-03'), which are not present in the schema as enums.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'financial reports', and lists specific report types (invoices, expenses, payment_methods, payroll). Distinguishes from sibling tools like fin.process_payment and fin.submit_expense by focusing on bulk export rather than individual transactions.

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?

Lists available report types and mentions a date range filter, providing basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fin.query_invoices (for querying specific invoices) or fin.submit_expense (for submitting a single expense). Lacks when-not or alternative guidance.

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