getFinancialStatementGrowth

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds 'track changes over time' which hints at time-series output but does not detail return format, pagination, or calculation methodology. It is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value and the structure is clear.

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 with 3 well-documented params and annotations. However, without an output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of time periods with growth rates) to be fully complete. As is, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how period or limit affect growth analysis.

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 analyzes growth of financial statement items across all three statements (income, balance sheet, cash flow). This distinguishes it from siblings like getIncomeStatementGrowth which focus on a single statement. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'growth of key financial statement items' are specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given numerous sibling tools for individual statement growth (e.g., getIncomeStatementGrowth), the description should specify that this tool is for combined analysis. It only says 'track changes over time' without contextual comparisons or exclusions.

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