Get Company Financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: data source (official BRREG annual accounts), currency handling (valuta field, MIXED meaning), and the metric set. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or auth.

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 three sentences, each contributing distinct value: purpose and metrics, usage triggers, and source/currency caveat. It is front-loaded with the main action and has no redundant filler.

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 read-only financial retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers data source, currency pitfalls, and usage context. The main gap is the unexplained regnskapstype parameter, which could affect whether company or consolidated figures are returned.

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 only 50% (orgnr and skip_freshness have inline descriptions, years and regnskapstype do not). The description only restates the default of 5 years and does not explain the regnskapstype enum (SELSKAP vs KONSERN), so an agent gets little additional parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly specifies the resource ('financial metrics for a Norwegian company') along with the key metrics (revenue, operating result, equity, debt, employees). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company (general info) and get_company_signals (signals/risk).

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 when the user asks...' with concrete example queries, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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