financials_capital_expenditures

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves historical capex, but does not disclose output format, periodicity, data granularity, or any limitations. While not misleading, it is far too sparse to inform an agent about the tool's behavior beyond the bare 'get' action.

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 very short (four words), which is concise, but it borders on under-specification. While it front-loads the core action and resource, it lacks any additional structure or elaboration that would make the brevity genuinely effective. It is acceptable but not excellent.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent needs to know what 'historical' means (annual/quarterly), what 'periods' implies, and what the response looks like. The sparse description leaves too much to inference, especially given the large sibling set that could confuse selection.

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 both `ticker` and `periods` adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context or usage nuances, so the baseline score of 3 applies – the schema does the heavy lifting and the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('historical capital expenditures'), making the core purpose unmistakable. It is clear and distinct enough from siblings like financials_free_cash_flow, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or differentiate itself from other financial metric tools.

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 alternatives such as financials_cash_flow_statement or financials_free_cash_flow. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions – the description is a bare phrase without any usage direction.

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