get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that missing line items appear under 'unavailable' and states the data source and return fields (concept, period, filing). However, it omits potential behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 and well-structured with a clear summary paragraph followed by an Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose—covering what it does, what it returns, how missing items behave, and parameter definitions—without unnecessary verbosity.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the primary return structure (concept, period, filing) and the 'unavailable' behavior for missing items. Combined with an output schema, this is sufficiently complete, though it doesn't address edge cases like invalid tickers or empty financial statements.

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?

The Args section explicitly defines ticker with an example and period with allowed values ('annual' or 'quarterly'), compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 it retrieves the latest full financial statement from SEC XBRL filings, listing all line items. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'full' and 'every available line item,' though it does not explicitly name alternative 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_financial_history or get_metrics. The description only explains what it does, leaving usage decisions to the agent without any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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