get_key_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that data comes from SEC XBRL (as-reported structured filings rather than market prices), but says nothing about update cadence, whether missing metrics are omitted or null, or how metric aliases are resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the source system and the canonical metric set, with zero filler. It is terse but every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema and annotations are present, so return shape and safety need not be restated, but for a four-parameter tool with no schema descriptions the definition leaves key callers' questions open: what 'period' accepts, what 'limit' counts, and units/currency of the returned figures. The description should have closed those gaps and does not.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does so by listing example metric names that hint at valid values for the 'metrics' parameter. It says nothing about 'ticker' format, 'limit' semantics (number of periods? records?), or which values 'period' accepts beyond the default 'annual'.

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 plus resource: query SEC XBRL structured financial data, with concrete example metrics (revenue, net_income, eps_diluted, operating_cash_flow, capex). This clearly separates it from price-oriented siblings like get_quote and get_price_history, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. An agent must infer on its own that this is the fundamentals tool versus search_filings or get_quote, and nothing says whether to prefer it over reading the raw filing.

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