financial_health_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the exact equal-weighting scheme (five pillars, 20% each), the specific metrics in each pillar, the inversion behavior for valuation, and the heuristic non-predictive nature of the score. This is far beyond what a typical description discloses.

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 information-dense but not bloated. Every sentence contributes: the main purpose and output, the five-pillar breakdown, the compositional nature and warning, and the parameter documentation. The structure front-loads the core action and then provides necessary details.

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 one-parameter tool with a documented output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: symbol format, scoring methodology, pillar definitions, and a behavioral caveat. There are no significant gaps.

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%, but the description fully compensates with a `:param symbol:` line that explains it is a 'ticker symbol' and gives concrete examples ('RELIANCE', 'TCS.NS', 'TCS.BO') illustrating exchange suffix conventions. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete and unambiguous.

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 verb ('Score'), a specific resource ('NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity'), and a clear output range ('0-100'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the four underlying calculators it composes and explicitly saying it is 'not a market-validated predictive model.'

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 clear context: it is a composite heuristic built from calculate_financial_ratios, calculate_growth_metrics, analyze_cash_flow_quality, and historical_valuation, which implies those siblings are more appropriate for granular metrics. It also provides an exclusion by stating it is 'not a market-validated predictive model,' signaling not to use it for predictive investment decisions. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use this tool when X, use Y instead,' but the guidance is strong.

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