financial_income_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the data reflects ttm/quarterly/annual conventions, currency, fiscal year alignments, or whether the source (VCI vs KBS) affects figures. With zero annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about what the returned income statement contains and any caveats.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise. However, given the tool's richness, one could argue it's under-specified rather than concise, but by the conciseness standard it is well-sized.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation, but this tool has no annotations, 3 parameters (1 required), and sits amid many similar financial siblings. The description ('Get income statement data for a company') is minimal and doesn't cover source semantics, period behavior, or when income statement data is the right choice. It's a capable tool but the description under-specifies it.

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 already documents the period and source parameters with defaults. The description adds no additional nuance about how period or source choices affect results, but at 100% coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't say what data each source provides or how annual vs quarter affects the structure.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get income statement data for a company'), which is clear enough. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like financial_balance_sheet, financial_cash_flow, or financial_ratio — though the name itself partially distinguishes it. The purpose is clear but generic without mention of what periods or data dimensions are covered.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the financial_balance_sheet, financial_cash_flow, or financial_ratio siblings. The description gives no context on which scenarios call for income statement data versus cash flow or balance sheet data. This is a gap given the large sibling set.

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