financials_current_liabilities

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention return format, time range granularity, units, or any side effects. While it implies a read operation, it does not confirm safety or disclose any limitations.

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 with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently states the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative about scope. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the schema's coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the meaning of 'historical' (e.g., does it default to a date range?) and does not clarify the optionality of `periods`. For a tool with many siblings, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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% for both `ticker` and `periods`, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or syntax details, meeting the baseline of 3 without enhancing understanding 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 uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'historical current liabilities', clearly indicating the data being retrieved. It distinguishes from the sibling `financials_total_liabilities` by specifying 'current', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 other liability-related tools like `financials_total_liabilities` or `financials_balance_sheet`. The description does not state any context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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