calculate_financial_ratios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'calculate' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only computation or if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, output format, and differentiation from siblings. For a calculation tool with financial data, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 50%, with one parameter ('values') having a generic description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'values' or providing examples. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Calculate comprehensive financial ratios' clearly states the verb ('calculate') and resource ('financial ratios'), but it's vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what makes the ratios 'comprehensive' or how this tool differs from sibling tools like 'financial_ratios_analysis' or 'excel_create_financial_ratios', leaving ambiguity about its specific purpose.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'financial_ratios_analysis', 'liquidity_analysis', 'excel_create_financial_ratios'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This omission makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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