financials_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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action ('Get income statement') without mentioning response format, potential size, data freshness, or any limitations. This is a minimalist description that leaves much about the tool's behavior undisclosed.

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 front-loads the primary action and includes all necessary modifiers without excess. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy.

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 read-oriented tool with no output schema, the description does not mention what the income statement contains or how many periods are returned. While the purpose is clear, an agent might need to infer output structure from similar siblings. The absence of any return details means it's adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by noting that year and quarter are optional, implying they are filters. This clarifies the parameter usage beyond the schema, which only describes their types. The word 'optionally' is a meaningful addition.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'income statement' for a ticker, which is specific and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like balance sheet or cash flow statement. No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.

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?

The description mentions 'optionally by year/quarter', which provides clear context on how to narrow the query. While it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or point to alternatives, the focus on income statement makes usage obvious to an agent. Sibling tools are named but no exclusions are given, so it's slightly above average.

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