get_financials_general

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates the tool is read-only by saying 'Returns' and lists the data blocks it delivers (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, valuation measures). However, it does not disclose potential limitations like data coverage, delay, or pagination behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful context about scope, data types, and filtering. It is compact without being under-specified.

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 the tool's moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good overview but lacks return structure details. It mentions 'unified response' and lists data blocks, but does not explain the output shape or how to interpret the combined response. This is a notable gap in the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description adds value by naming 'annual, quarterly, trailing' and 'type and interval' filtering, but this largely repeats schema enum values. Baseline of 3 applies since 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 it returns financial statements and valuation measures, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('equity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'unified response' and filtering by type and interval, which contrasts with the specialized sibling tools.

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 usage when multiple financial statement types or intervals are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No direct guidance like 'use this for a broad overview' or 'use get_financials_income_statement for a single statement' is provided.

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