get_financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering (newest first), that values are as originally filed, the sign convention (expenses negative), and the unit caveat (Rs million for most companies). It omits auth/rate-limit and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter meaning, then data caveats. Every clause carries information an agent needs (range, format, defaults, sign convention, units) with no filler.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is returned, ordering, units, sign conventions, and both optional-parameter defaults, which is nearly sufficient for a 3-param read tool. The unexplained required scripcode keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents 'quarters' with a 1-16 range, 'upto' with a concrete format example ('Q1 FY27') and its default detection behavior, but the required 'scripcode' parameter is never explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

States a specific resource (quarterly P&L from BSE results filings) plus derived metrics (EBITDA, margins, tax rate) and ordering (newest first). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_quote, get_peers, or get_announcements, which cover different data.

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?

Usage is implied by the content (fetch historical quarterly financials for a scrip) and the default 'upto' behavior is explained, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives or names any sibling. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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