comparative_income_statement

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 mentions 'Generate' which implies a creation or computation action, but doesn't disclose whether this tool requires specific data inputs, permissions, or how it handles errors. There's no information on output format (e.g., structured data, file generation) or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded with a single sentence that states the core function. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the basic intent. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as-is, it avoids waste.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'comparative income statement' entails, how periods are defined, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely generates financial reports, more context on behavior, output, and usage is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'multiple periods' which loosely relates to the 'periods' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'outputToExcel' or 'filePath' parameters at all. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to clarify parameter purposes or usage.

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 the tool's purpose ('Generate comparative income statement for multiple periods'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (income statement) and scope (comparative, multiple periods), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'generate_income_statement' or other analytics tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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., 'generate_income_statement', 'analytics_scenario_comparison'), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or comparisons. It doesn't specify if this is for historical analysis, forecasting, or other use cases, leaving the agent to guess.

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