financial_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, data freshness, or whether the response is a single statement or a time series. Given it's a financial data retrieval tool with an output schema, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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 a single concise sentence that states the purpose efficiently. No waste or filler, though it's arguably too sparse given the tool's scope.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and is part of a family of financial statement tools (balance_sheet, income_statement, ratio) with 20 siblings. The one-sentence description doesn't explain what data is returned, how it differs from siblings, or what the 'VCI' vs 'KBS' source distinction means. For a financial statement tool with an output schema, more context about return content would help.

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%, so the schema documents all 3 parameters with descriptions (symbol, period, source). The description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the documentation burden adequately.

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 states 'Get cash flow statement for a company' with a specific verb and resource. It's clear what it does but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like financial_balance_sheet, financial_income_statement, or financial_ratio beyond the statement name implied by the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. While the tool name implies cash flow specifically, the description provides no context about use cases, exclusions, or when a different financial statement tool would be more appropriate.

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