get_key_ratios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content (P/E, P/B, ROE, etc.), which is useful context, but says nothing about staleness, data source, or rate limits beyond the annotation layer.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and cleanly sectioned into Args/Returns. The Returns block partly duplicates the existing output schema, but the overall size is short and each line is legible.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and safety by the annotations, so those need not be restated. However, given the dense sibling set for financial data, the absence of any disambiguation leaves the description merely adequate.

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 must carry the parameter meaning; it does document the single argument as 'ticker: Stock ticker symbol.' That is adequate for a one-parameter tool but adds no format or exchange-suffix guidance, so it is minimum-viable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get key financial ratios and valuation metrics') with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from statement-oriented siblings like get_income_statement or get_balance_sheet, but it never names an alternative or clarifies its boundary versus get_financial_summary or get_valuation_history.

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?

Purely a description of what it returns; there is no when-to-use guidance. With 70+ financial siblings, the agent gets no help on when to pick this over get_financial_summary, get_ttm_financials, or get_valuation_history.

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