financials_net_income

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'historical net income' but does not disclose output format (e.g., array of values, units, or currency), any rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation (which is implied but not stated explicitly). The minimal nature leaves behavioral expectations opaque.

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 sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly scannable.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify whether results are a single value or a series, nor does it mention units or formatting. Given the presence of many similar financial metric tools, this brevity is acceptable but leaves room for ambiguity.

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. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 net income for a ticker'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like financials_revenue or financials_ebitda. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for full income statement data one should use financials_income_statement, nor does it specify any context where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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