get_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the cash flow data is returned in. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 appropriately concise and well-structured. The main purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by parameter documentation. There's no unnecessary information or repetition. The formatting with Args: section helps with readability, though the indentation appears slightly off in the provided text.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain output format. However, for a financial data tool with no annotations, the description should provide more context about data sources, update frequency, or limitations. It adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks operational context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear parameter semantics. It explains that 'symbol' is a 'Stock symbol to get cash flow for' and gives examples (AAPL, MSFT), adding meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for understanding its purpose.

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's purpose: 'Get company cash flow statement data.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('company cash flow statement data'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_balance_sheet or get_income_statement, which are also financial statement tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, when it's not, or how it differs from related sibling tools like get_balance_sheet or get_income_statement. The only contextual information is the parameter explanation, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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