get_financial_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does state the data source (Yahoo Finance) and the allowed statement types, but it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, potential limitations, or any network/auth requirements. The 'get' verb implies safety, but the description adds limited behavioral insight beyond that.

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 clear and front-loaded, but the list of financial statement types is repeated verbatim in the first sentence and in the Args section, which is redundant. This wastes space and could be tightened without losing information.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description provides the source, allowed values, and parameter explanations, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. Minor gaps like error handling or data format are not critical here.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the ticker parameter with an example ('AAPL') and lists all valid values for financial_type, adding essential meaning beyond the bare string 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 fetches a financial statement for a ticker from Yahoo Finance, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing specific statement types (income, balance, cashflow), which are unique among the sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the description and the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The description lists allowed statement types, which helps, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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