analyze_financial_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'analyzes and visualizes' suggests both computation and presentation, it doesn't specify what kind of analysis (e.g., ratios, trends), visualization format (e.g., charts, tables), whether it's read-only or creates new data, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what visualization outputs are produced, or how results are returned. For a financial analysis tool that presumably produces complex outputs, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 3 parameters (corp_codes, report_code, year). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'analyzes and visualizes financial statement data for multiple companies.' It specifies both the action (analyze and visualize) and the resource (financial statement data for multiple companies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'generate_financial_chart' or 'generate_financial_dashboard' which also involve financial data visualization.

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. There are no explicit instructions about when/when-not to use it, nor any mention of sibling tools like 'generate_financial_chart' or 'generate_financial_dashboard' that might serve similar purposes. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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