get_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it states the data source ('XBRL in the company's own regulatory filings') and explicitly guarantees no language model is involved in producing figures. This gives the agent confidence about provenance, though it does not describe output structure or failure behavior.

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 action, scope, and content; the second adds valuable provenance context. Both sentences earn their 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key line items and stating the time-series nature. It does not detail row layout or units, but the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and set expectations for the response.

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%, and the schema already explains `code`, `years`, and `period` in detail, including the EDINET-code caveat and period meanings. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond framing the result as a per-period time series, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') with a clear resource ('multi-year financial statement time series') and scope ('for one company'), and it lists the exact metrics returned. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_earnings or get_segments without opening their schemas.

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 makes it clear this is for retrieving broad financial-statement time series for a single company, which gives the agent useful context for when to select it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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