getCashFlowStatementAsReported

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds context about the source ('directly from official reports') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits (though the 'limit' parameter is documented in schema) or return format. With annotations covering core safety, the description adds modest value.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 only three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data source. It could be enhanced by briefly describing the return structure (e.g., a list of cash flow items), but the lack of output schema reduces the burden. Minor gap, but still sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (symbol, limit, period). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'operations, investments, and financing' but these are not parameter-specific. Baseline 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's purpose: 'View cash flow statements as reported by the company.' It specifies the resource (cash flow statements as reported) and the action (view). This distinguishes it from similar tools like getCashFlowStatement, which likely provides standardized data, by emphasizing 'as reported' and 'directly from official reports.'

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 the tool should be used for raw, as-reported cash flow data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getCashFlowStatement for standardized data). It provides no exclusion criteria or context about when not to use it.

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