Get company financials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source per jurisdiction, that amounts are in EUR with a `unit` field, that ROA/ROE are ratios, and that it is an extractor over get_company_details. It does not discuss error handling or missing data scenarios, but the core behavioral context is well covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by units/source and the implementation note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (list of annual statements, specific financial metrics, units, ratios). Combined with the detailed parameter schema and clear sibling differentiation, the tool context is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 100%, so per the rubric, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions jurisdiction in the context of the data source, not the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('most-recent annual financial statements') and enumerates the exact fields (turnover, total assets, equity, profit, EBITDA, ROA, ROE). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by branding itself as a 'thin extractor over get_company_details', which clearly separates it from the broader lookup tools.

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 states when to use this tool: 'saves the LLM from parsing the full company envelope when only financials are needed.' It also names the alternative (get_company_details) and provides jurisdictional source guidance, making the use cases clear.

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