financial_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral details: data sources, unit handling (raw KRW, percentages, ratios), edge cases (financial companies with no revenue, bankruptcy situations), period semantics (quarterly vs cumulative vs balance), automatic warnings, and calculation specifics (EBITDA, interest coverage). This is exhaustive.

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 very long and dense, mixing technical details with usage guidance in a single paragraph. It uses sections (desc, when, rule, period, scope, ref) but without clear structure or line breaks, making parsing difficult. It could be restructured for clarity and brevity.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description provides comprehensive context: data sources, unit conventions, edge cases, period handling, scope definitions, and cross-references to related tools. It adequately supports correct invocation and interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the 'scope' parameter in detail with all options (summary, yearly, quarterly, yoy, qoq, audit_opinion) and their behavior. Other parameters like year, consolidated, years are implicitly addressed (e.g., year default and meaning). The format parameter is not discussed, and mapping to schema could be clearer.

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 integrates four financial endpoints and provides profitability, stability, cash flow, and accounting risk metrics. While it lacks a concise verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', the purpose is well-defined and distinguishes from siblings by specifying Korean standard and metrics computed.

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 includes a 'when' section listing three specific use cases (fundamental and accounting risk diagnosis, alerts for net loss/turnaround/interest coverage, cross-check on outside director service) and references other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to siblings.

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