financials_total_liabilities

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 only states that the tool retrieves data, implying a read operation, but says nothing about output format, data frequency, currency, or any other behavioral nuances. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core action and resource immediately, which is ideal for an agent scanning many tools.

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 with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The term 'total liabilities' is a standard financial metric, and the context of historical data is clear. However, it could benefit from a note about units or data granularity, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify the relationship between 'periods' and the returned data.

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 total liabilities'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like financials_total_assets and financials_current_liabilities. The word 'historical' signals a time-series scope, which is actionable and unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient given the large family of financials tools.

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