get_financials_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, required permissions, or error handling. Minimal disclosure beyond the operation type.

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 just two sentences: one defining the action and resource, the other listing outputs. Efficient and well-front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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 single required parameter and presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its scope. It covers all major financial statement components and segment breakdowns, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'symbol'. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format example). Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a financial statement overview and segment revenue breakdown for a stock. It lists the specific components (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_quote or get_history.

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 for stocks but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. While siblings cover different instruments (bonds, ETFs, etc.), the description lacks direct guidance on selection.

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