get_company_financial_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or handles errors (e.g., invalid company_id). It only describes the return type in vague terms ('financial summary'), lacking detail on data stability or side effects.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by a documented args list. It avoids unnecessary text, though the formatting could be tighter (e.g., removing the Args block if redundant with schema). The front-loading effectively communicates the main action.

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 the lack of output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more detail on the return format, key metrics included, or behavior with missing data. It does not help the agent understand what 'financial summary' entails, and sibling tools imply a need for differentiation that is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'company_id' as a unique identifier and 'months' as the number of historical months, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. However, it lacks constraints (e.g., allowed range for months) or further context about what the parameters control, making it minimally adequate.

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 retrieves a financial summary for a company with key metrics over time. It specifies the resource (company) and the nature of the data (financial metrics over time), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_company' (basic info) or 'get_company_metrics' (likely current metrics).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like pulling historical performance or comparing across periods, nor does it exclude other tools like 'get_company_performance'.

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