get_income_statement

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the data source (Yahoo), the approximate lookback window (~5 years annual / ~5-6 quarters), and the ordering (newest period first). This goes well beyond a bare operation description, though it doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the main purpose, and immediately followed by compact parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the size is appropriate for a two-parameter tool.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, data coverage, and ordering. An output schema is present, so return values do not need to be described. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus its financial-statement siblings, but overall the context is sufficient.

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 fully document parameters. It explains the symbol parameter with concrete ticker examples (RELIANCE, TCS.NS, TCS.BO) and clarifies that period accepts 'annual' or 'quarterly', matching the schema enum. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (get), the resource (income statement), the market coverage (NSE/BSE-listed Indian equity), and the included metrics (revenue, gross profit, EBIT, EBITDA, net income, EPS). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_balance_sheet or get_cash_flow_statement.

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 implies usage for income statement data through the tool name and content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_balance_sheet or get_cash_flow_statement. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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