financials_operating_cash_flow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get historical operating cash flow', implying a read operation and temporal scope, but it does not disclose return format, currency, magnitude (e.g., in millions), whether the value is per-share, or any pagination or error behavior. This is insufficient for a financial data tool without annotation support.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though it could be more informative while remaining concise. It front-loads the core verb and resource.

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 tool that returns a specific financial metric, the description is notably incomplete. It does not specify what the output represents (e.g., total operating cash flow per period), whether values are in thousands, millions, or as reported, the default number of periods if omitted, or any details about the time series (e.g., quarterly vs. annual). Even though the schema covers parameter definitions, the absence of output expectations and metric details leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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% (ticker: 'Stock ticker', periods: 'Number of periods'), so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds the word 'historical', which reinforces the relevance of the 'periods' parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 'Get historical operating cash flow' clearly identifies a specific financial metric (operating cash flow) and indicates that it returns historical data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials_cash_flow_statement (which would provide the full statement) and other financial metrics (revenue, net income, etc.).

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. It does not mention that it should be used instead of financials_cash_flow_statement when only the operating cash flow line is needed, nor does it address any prerequisites or context for choosing this metric. An agent is left to infer the purpose 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.