get_company_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job: it discloses the data source, the output composition (multi-year series plus annual snapshot), and an important edge case where newer companies may return an empty series with a warning. This goes beyond what the tool name alone suggests.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important fallback behavior is provided as a concise second sentence.

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?

For a simple read-oriented tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough return-semantics context: multi-year financials, annual snapshot, and warning behavior. It does not describe exact response fields, but the essential calling context is present.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 function: retrieving multi-year financial dynamics and an annual snapshot by INN from a specific source (ГИР БО ФНС), listing covered fields (revenue, profit, assets, ratios). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_company or get_company_timeline.

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 usage context is only implied: an agent can infer it should be used when financial dynamics for a company are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as get_company_timeline.

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