scan_financial_anomaly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculations (four indicators plus accrual ratio and comparison) and flags specific conditions (reverse net income). However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only scan with no side effects, which would be ideal.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose paragraph followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or unnecessary text. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 existence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of returns (indicators and explanations) without needing to detail the schema. All parameters are documented, and the tool's behavior is well explained. Could mention that output schema gives detailed structure, but overall complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: company_name (name or code), year (fiscal year, blank=previous), report_type (annual/half/q1/q3). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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's purpose: scanning financial statements for anomalies by comparing four key indicators year-over-year and detecting early signs of fraud or distress. It lists specific metrics and additional comparisons, distinguishing it from siblings like 'compare_financials' which likely does general comparison.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of specific contexts (e.g., 'use for early warning') or exclusions. The sibling list is provided but the description itself lacks usage guidance.

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