get_company_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful context: data is parsed from XBRL annual reports, limited to 5 years, and the Pro-plan API key requirement is disclosed. It also notes that the demo key returns fixture data, which is a practical behavioral detail. It does not mention error cases or data availability gaps, but the disclosed traits are substantial.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and includes the returned metrics; the second concisely covers the auth prerequisite. Every phrase 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the input (cvr), the output (five specific financial metrics), the time range, data source, and access requirement. It does not describe the response envelope or formatting, but the listed metrics give an agent enough to understand what to expect.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'cvr' with an 8-digit pattern and example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond labeling the company as Danish. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('financial figures for a Danish company'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or draw a contrast with lookup_company/search_companies, but the focus on XBRL financials makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies its use case: retrieving multi-year financial metrics from annual reports. It does not, however, provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over lookup_company or search_companies, nor state any exclusions. The auth requirement is mentioned, which helps operational usage, but not tool-selection guidance.

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