Get Company Financials

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns historical data (last N years) and lists the metrics, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence describing the action and one sentence providing usage examples. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the financial fields but does not explain the output structure or the difference between `regnskapstype` values (SELSKAP vs KONSERN). Important behavioral details like the impact of `skip_freshness` are 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 only 50% (two params lack descriptions). The tool description repeats the default for `years` but does not explain `regnskapstype` or `skip_freshness`. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameters with enum values and boolean flags under-documented.

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 fetches financial metrics (revenue, operating result, etc.) for a Norwegian company over N years. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like firmaradar_get_company or firmaradar_get_company_ownership, which retrieve other company data.

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 provides explicit example queries ('how is X AS doing financially?') that indicate when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools for other types of financial inquiries.

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