Financial Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond explaining parameter values, which is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 succinct with only two sentences, no redundancy, and clearly front-loads the main purpose. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input parameters and their options. It could mention what the output looks like, but the tool is straightforward and the parameter enum values are enough for correct invocation.

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%, but the description enriches parameter understanding by enumerating valid values (e.g., 'IS/BS/CF/ALL' for kind, 'af/saf/q1/q2/q3/qf' for report_type). This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions, making the tool easier to use correctly.

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 retrieves financial reports and lists types (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) and parameters (kind, report_type). It is specific about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like financial_report_latest or financial_statement.

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 explicit valid values for kind and report_type but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., financial_report_latest, financial_report_snapshot, financial_statement). The agent is left to infer context.

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