get_financial_statements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the XBRL source, English labels, KRW units, consolidated-to-separate fallback, summary vs full scope, and the meaning of 'current' versus 'current_year_to_date' for quarterly income statements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses compact bullets to explain the parameters that most need clarification. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description is complete for most parameters and data semantics, but the missing guidance on the required company parameter is a notable gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does for year, period, consolidated, and detail—including enum meanings and fallback semantics. It does not explain the required company parameter's expected format.

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 that the tool returns financial statements sourced from XBRL filings with English account labels. It distinguishes the resource from nearby filing-related siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It gives useful usage context for period selection, including the explicit instruction to use 'annual' for Q4/full-year. It also explains the consolidated fallback behavior, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_filing_text.

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