get_financial_statements_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the fs_div fallback (if CFS is empty it retries OFS and reveals which was used) and the 'IS' quirk that selects both IS and CIS, yielding 0 rows for CIS-only companies. It omits auth/permission and rate-limit behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Well front-loaded (the core behavior is stated first, then the sibling comparison, then Args and Returns headings). Given five parameters and two behavioral caveats, the length is justified, though the Args block is dense enough to be slightly verbose.

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 complex five-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, parameter meaning, fallback behavior, and output shape (per-statement tables, original account names/order, no grades). An output schema exists, yet the extra return context still adds value rather than repeating structured data.

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 documents all five parameters: company_name accepts name or 6-digit ticker, year defaults to the prior year, report_type enumerates annual/half/q1/q3, fs_div enumerates CFS/OFS plus fallback, and statement enumerates BS/IS/CIS/CF/SCE with the IS caveat.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: returns ALL accounts of the financial statements in original order and original names. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_financial_summary ('returns only key accounts'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_financial_summary) and the exact condition that selects this tool: when you need lines absent from the summary, listing concrete examples (COGS, SG&A, financial income/costs, other gains/losses, equity-method P/L). It also says the summary side is better for skimming, giving both when-to-use and when-not.

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