get_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the quarterly condition (True = quarterly, False = annual) and returns a dictionary. However, it does not disclose any limitations (e.g., data freshness, availability for all symbols, rate limits), which keeps this at a mid-level 3.

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 compact docstring with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and it front-loads the main verb/resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (2 params, output schema present). The description covers the essential behavior and parameter usage, while the output schema handles return structure. No critical contextual gaps (e.g., prerequisites for a read operation) are evident, so it is complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it gives a concrete example for symbol ('AAPL') and specifies the exact behavior of the quarterly flag. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 'Get financial statements for a stock' with specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_earnings (which focuses on earnings data) and get_historical_data (price history), so it unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve financial statements) and explains the quarterly vs. annual data option. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident among siblings, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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