get_financial_statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds some behavioral context like returning three statement types and parameter effects, but does not disclose additional traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with an intro, strategy, example, and Args list. It is concise with no filler, though it could be slightly tighter by blending the strategy inline. The front-loaded purpose and strategy are effective.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. It adequately covers purpose, parameters, and usage strategy. It lacks error condition details but is complete for typical use.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter in the Args section, including defaults and allowed values (e.g., kind: IS/BS/CF/ALL, report: annual/semi_annual/quarterly). This adds meaningful semantics 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 description clearly states 'Get financial statements (Income Statement / Balance Sheet / Cash Flow),' specifying the exact resource and verb. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_financial_metrics or get_valuation.

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 <strategy> tag explains when to use different kind values ('Use kind=ALL for all three statements, or IS/BS/CF individually'), and the <examples> tag provides a concrete usage example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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