financials_free_cash_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get historical free cash flow' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no information about data frequency, units, currency, fiscal year alignment, or how free cash flow is calculated. It provides zero incremental behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any substantive content that earns its place, making it more of a placeholder than a useful definition.

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 financial metric tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context such as return format, the significance of free cash flow, how periods are interpreted, and any caveats like data availability. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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%: both 'ticker' and 'periods' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify what 'periods' refer to (e.g., quarterly, annual) or any units/format, which could have added 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('historical free cash flow'), which distinguishes it from sibling financials tools like financials_operating_cash_flow or financials_capital_expenditures. However, it does not explicitly mention the metric's derivation or how it differs from related measures, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer operating cash flow or capital expenditures separately). The description provides neither explicit context nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the metric name.

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