get_balance_sheet

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' (implying a read operation) but does not disclose return format, data structure, potential errors, or any limitations. The annual/quarterly mention only repeats information already present in the schema enum.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys the period options.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no description of return values or shape. The description suffices for a basic 'fetch statement' tool but leaves the agent to guess what the returned object contains.

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 all three parameters (symbol, period, limit) with descriptions and enum values, so the description does not need to add much. However, the description adds no extra semantic detail about how these parameters interact or what defaults apply, netting a baseline score.

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') and resource ('company balance sheet statement'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also adds the annual/quarterly scope, which distinguishes it from sibling financial statement tools like income statement and cash flow.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_income_statement or get_cash_flow. The description merely states what the tool does without offering context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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