financial_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying the return payload (health score, key ratios, red flags) and the existence of an API-key-gated deep modeling tier. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does and its limitations, though it does not detail data handling or edge cases.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, and the second adds the API-key distinction. Every word earns its place, and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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 that all six parameters are optional and there is no output schema, the description communicates the main return values and the free vs. paid differentiation. However, it does not specify whether any parameters must be supplied, how the analysis weighs inputs, or what happens if no data is provided. This is a minor gap for a tool that accepts all-optional inputs, but the core operational context is clear enough for an agent to invoke it.

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 the schema already explains each parameter (cash, assets, revenue, expenses, liabilities, description). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how to combine the numeric fields or the role of the free-text description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a specific verb ('financial ratio analysis') and resource ('financial ratios'), and clearly announces the output ('health score, key ratios, red flags'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance_check or risk_assessment by focusing on ratio-based financial health, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 use for ratio-based financial analysis but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., budget_forecast for budgeting, risk_assessment for risk). It also fails to clarify whether certain parameters are required or how the free tier differs from the API-key tier in terms of analysis depth, leaving the selection context vague.

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