get_key_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't explain whether it returns historical data, how 'key' is defined, or any limitations. No contradiction is present, but the information is minimal.

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 that is efficient and without waste. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured to include usage context without bloating.

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 existence of many similar sibling tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough. It doesn't clarify what distinguishes 'key metrics' from financial ratios, nor what the response shape or period handling is.

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, limit, period) with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a little context by naming example metrics (P/E, ROE) but does not explain how parameters affect the output.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('key financial metrics'), with examples of what those metrics are. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like get_financial_ratios, which likely covers similar metrics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to get_financial_ratios, get_income_statement, or similar tools.

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