financial_statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about the output orientation (periods × rows) and the supported statement types, but discloses nothing about the undocumented `view` mode, data freshness, or the cost of broad requests.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the output-shape statement is front-loaded ahead of the parameter notes. The 'periods × rows' phrasing is slightly cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the response shape.

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 four-parameter, zero-schema-coverage tool with no output schema, the description covers the two most consequential parameters and hints at the return layout. It does not explain the required `symbol`, the `view` option, or what a 'row' contains, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does document `statement` values (quarters | profit_loss | balance_sheet | cash_flow | ratios) even though the schema declares no enum, and it clarifies `periods` (latest N columns, 0 = all). It leaves the required `symbol` and the `view` parameter entirely undefined, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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 conveys that this returns a full financial statement in a periods-×-rows layout and enumerates the available statement types, which is informative. However, it never states the subject of the statement (a company identified by the required `symbol`) and never uses a clear verb such as 'return' or 'fetch', leaving the purpose partially inferred from the tool name.

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 given about when to use this instead of siblings like company_overview, company_snapshot, or earnings_trend, all of which overlap in returning company financial context. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no mention of how to choose a `statement` value for a given question.

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