get_financial_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: ordering ('oldest to newest'), per-point fiscal year and source filing, and visibility of restated figures. This goes well beyond what the schema provides, though it omits failure or availability details.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a brief use-case sentence and a structured Args list. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple data-retrieval nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and key behavioral details. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description's Args section documents every parameter with examples ('NVDA', 'revenue', 'net_income', 'annual' vs 'quarterly', maximum periods). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Historical series for one line item, oldest to newest.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one line item' and the chronological ordering, which sets it apart from broader financials or metrics 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?

It explicitly states 'Use this for growth rates and trends,' conveying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it lacks explicit 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.