Get company financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source by jurisdiction, currency (EUR), and that it is a thin extractor over get_company_details, implying a read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, missing financial data, or whether any authentication is required, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details, and includes a concise rationale for its existence. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 description covers essential context: the financial fields returned, source by jurisdiction, currency, and its relationship to get_company_details. However, it lacks explicit details about the return structure (e.g., array of statements, ordering, handling of missing data) which is notable given there is no output schema. For a tool with this simplicity, the description is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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?

Both parameters (ico, years) have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'N most-recent' aligns with the schema's 'years' description but does not add significant new meaning beyond it. The list of financial fields refers to the return value rather than the parameters, so the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 returns up to N most-recent annual financial statements for a company, listing the specific financial metrics (turnover, total assets, equity, profit, EBITDA, ROA, ROE). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_company_details by framing itself as a 'thin extractor' for financials, making its scope and purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using this tool when 'only financials are needed' and mentions it saves the LLM from parsing the full company envelope, directly contrasting with get_company_details. This provides clear selection criteria and identifies the alternative, meeting the bar for explicit usage guidance.

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