get_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it only restates purpose and points to an external reference for field names. It discloses no behavior about response shape, limits, default currency behavior, or failure cases, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects from the name.

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 with front-loaded purpose and a useful reference pointer; no filler or repeated schema details.

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 core invocation is understandable and the reference resource helps with field names, but there is no output schema or annotations, and the description doesn't cover return format, default behavior, or alternative selection. For a 4-param tool with close siblings, this is adequate but not rich.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the report content list and single-instrument scope, but does not add semantic detail for maxCount or original beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('financial reports') plus the key scope ('for one instrument by report type'). It also enumerates report contents (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow), clearly distinguishing this single-instrument tool from siblings like get_reports_batch.

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 crisply states the intended context: one instrument and a specific report type, which tells an agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top-tier 'when not to use' guidance.

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