financial_ratios_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'calculate' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only analysis, requires specific data inputs beyond the date parameter, has side effects, or details output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 implied by 'comprehensive financial ratios', no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what ratios are included, data sources, output format, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'asOfDate' means in context (e.g., date for ratio calculation, historical data cutoff), its format beyond the schema's 'date' type, or how it affects the analysis. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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' states a clear verb ('calculate') and resource ('financial ratios'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_financial_ratios' or 'excel_create_financial_ratios'. It lacks specificity about what 'comprehensive' entails or what distinguishes this tool from similar ones.

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 multiple sibling tools involving financial ratios (e.g., 'calculate_financial_ratios', 'excel_create_financial_ratios', 'liquidity_analysis'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the general purpose.

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