get_financials

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output modes and defaults (summary vs full, text vs json), which is useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, multi-symbol behavior, or how results are returned when multiple symbols are passed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then defaults. No filler, though it is short enough that it could have afforded one routing sentence to a sibling without bloat.

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?

A five-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations needs decent coverage. The description handles the mode/default decisions well but leaves multi-symbol behavior, data recency, and any auth considerations unaddressed, so it is adequate rather than 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 100% with four documented enums, so the schema already explains type, detail, format, and frequency, including their defaults. The description restates the summary/detail and text/json defaults but adds no format syntax or edge-case meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns financial statements') plus the added value ('key metrics and YoY% changes'). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like get_key_stats or get_earnings.

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 gives mode guidance ('Default: summary mode', 'use detail=full for all', 'set format=json for structured data'), which is really parameter-usage guidance rather than when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative. No alternative sibling is named or excluded, so usage context is only implied.

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