Financial Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond the parameter values; it does not disclose additional behavior like data volume, output structure, or potential errors. For a read-only tool with rich annotations, this is marginally acceptable.

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, concise sentence that lists the main action and enumerates parameter values. No redundant words, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every piece earns its place.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the necessary information: what reports are retrieved and the parameter options. It could be improved by mentioning that it returns full financial statements for the specified period, but it is mostly complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description repeats the parameter values (kind, report_type) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 specific kinds (IS, BS, CF, ALL) and report types. This gives a clear verb+resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like financial_report_snapshot or financial_report_key_metrics, which reduces clarity for distinguishing usage.

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. Given the presence of sibling tools focusing on key metrics, snapshots, or latest reports, the agent receives no context to decide which to invoke. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are given.

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