get_financials_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: per-company results with data/error and recovery hints, one bad symbol not failing the batch, single-request quota accounting, and the same-year constraint. This goes far beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose, then lists constraints and behavior in a compact paragraph with no filler. Every sentence adds either selection guidance, parameter semantics, failure behavior, or quota implications.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, limits, error handling, per-company return semantics, and quota impact. An agent has what it needs to decide when to call it and what to expect from individual results.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It defines ticker/cik input as comma-separated symbols, a 25-symbol maximum, the single-year requirement, and delegates shared meanings (as_of, include_provenance, include_ratios) to the get_financials semantics. This is substantial added meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve normalized US-GAAP financials') plus the batching scope ('for MANY companies in one call'), and explicitly frames it as the right tool for comparing peers or scanning a set. This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_financials.

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?

It says when to use the tool ('compare peers or scan a set for a single fiscal year') and names the alternative with the selection condition ('prefer it over many get_financials calls when you need several companies'). The single-year and 25-symbol constraints further clarify appropriate use.

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