financials_total_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'historical' implying time-series data, but does not explain return format, units, period definitions, or error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. The structure is front-loaded and direct, making it easy to parse. The description earns its place without any fluff.

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 two parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks details on what 'historical' means in terms of frequency (e.g., quarterly, annual), the currency, or the behavior when periods is omitted. Given the absence of annotations, this is only partially complete for an agent to call correctly.

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% as both parameters (ticker and periods) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the word 'historical', which hints at time-series but does not clarify the meaning of 'periods' in terms of frequency or default. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 tool retrieves historical total assets, using a specific verb ('Get') and a specific financial metric ('total assets'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like financials_revenue or financials_total_liabilities. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other financials tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. There is no context about typical use cases or when this tool would be preferred over the balance_sheet or other metric-specific tools.

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