Company financial statements

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the schema lacks: the reporting unit (₹ crore) and the full set of returned metrics, which substitutes for the absent output schema. It says nothing about data coverage, history limits, or behavior when data is unavailable.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary metrics and ending with the unit convention. Every listed item is meaningful given there is no output schema, though the run-on enumeration is heavy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the statements, ratios and currency. It omits any caveat about data availability, history depth, or cases of missing/mixed reporting periods.

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 coverage is 100%, so symbol, period and count are fully documented in the schema itself (including the NSE symbol format and count bounds). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the currency unit, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates exactly which financial data is returned (revenue, EBITDA, balance sheet, cash flow, ratios), so an agent knows this is a fundamentals/statements tool, clearly separable from get_quote or get_price_history. It never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing advice relative to siblings like get_quote or get_shareholding. The usage is only implied by the content listing — an agent must infer that this is for statement-level fundamentals.

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