get_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the result orientation (rows are line items, columns are periods, most recent first), but says nothing about pagination, statement availability limits, or error behavior for invalid symbols.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the result-shape note, and no filler. Slightly terse at the cost of routing information, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description only needs to frame purpose and result orientation, which it does. Missing guidance on choosing between this and the many sibling financial-data tools is the only real gap.

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%, so freq, symbol, and statement are each fully documented in the schema, including the 'ttm is income and cashflow only' caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a financial statement) scoped to a Yahoo symbol, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_earnings or get_estimates. It does not explicitly name those 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance in the description: no mention of when to prefer this over get_earnings, get_estimates, or get_fund_data, and no stated prerequisites. The only routing hint ('For a company name, use search first') lives in the symbol parameter schema, not the description.

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