get_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds 'annual or quarterly', which duplicates the schema enum. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, describe return format, or mention default behaviors for omitted parameters.

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 sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools, it could be more complete by mentioning the contents of a cash flow statement or period ordering.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description's mention of 'annual or quarterly' provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema's period enum, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource ('company cash flow statement') along with the scope ('annual or quarterly'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling financial statement tools like get_income_statement and get_balance_sheet.

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 a cash flow statement is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. It is reasonable but lacks explicit guidance.

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