income_statement

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 states 'fetch' implies a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, time periods covered). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of financial data fetching, no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address output format, error cases, or usage context, leaving the agent with too many unknowns to use the tool reliably.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention the 'symbol' parameter at all. It fails to explain what 'symbol' represents (e.g., stock ticker, company identifier), expected format, or examples. For a single undocumented parameter, this is inadequate compensation.

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 'Fetch company income statement' clearly states the verb ('fetch') and resource ('company income statement'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'balance_sheet' or 'cash_flow' that also fetch financial statements, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives like 'balance_sheet' or 'cash_flow', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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