financials_cash_flow_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it retrieves a cash flow statement but does not disclose return format, default behavior if year/quarter are omitted, or any limitations. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the structure of the returned data or what happens if year/quarter are not provided. This leaves the agent uncertain about the response format and default behavior. For a financial statement tool, more context is expected.

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 coverage is 100% for all parameters, each with a description. The description adds the phrase 'optionally by year/quarter', reinforcing that these are optional, but this is already implied by the schema's required field. Thus, it adds little 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?

The description states a clear purpose: 'Get cash flow statement for a ticker' with optional year/quarter filtering. It is specific enough to distinguish from income statement and balance sheet, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. The verb 'Get' and resource are clear.

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 like financials_income_statement or financials_operating_cash_flow. The optional year/quarter parameters imply usage, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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