get_financials_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ordered oldest-to-newest, but says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, rate limits, data source, or error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single line, followed by a compact Args list and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is justified because the schema carries no field descriptions.

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 five-parameter financial-history tool the parameter documentation is thorough, and the return order is stated (the output schema covers the return shape itself). The remaining gap is the absence of guidance about when this tool should be chosen over get_financials and other siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does: it documents all five parameters with meaning, allowed values ('Q'/'A'), defaults (limit 12, period Q), a range (1-100), enumerated statement types, and example line-item keys. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Get historical quarterly or annual financial-statement series'), which is clear enough to distinguish a time-series endpoint from a snapshot endpoint. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling get_financials, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With a sibling named get_financials, an agent must guess which one to call for a historical series versus a current snapshot.

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