Financial Statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, pagination, rate limits). It is acceptable but does not go beyond annotations.

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?

Description is two lines, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence is informative. No wasted words.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown) and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for typical use. It could mention that the output is a financial statement object, but the purpose is clear. Siblings exist but their distinction is implied through parameters.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the shortcut abbreviations for kind (IS/BS/CF/ALL) and report periods (af, saf, qf, q1/q2/q3) in a compact manner, which is not fully present in schema descriptions. This helps agents understand allowed values quickly.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, or cash flow)', and scope 'for a security'. It lists statement types and report periods. However, it does not explicitly distinguish among siblings like financial_report, cash_flow, etc., though the specificity of kind and report parameters helps.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No when/when-not or alternative tool mentions. The description assumes the agent knows when to pick this over other financial statement tools.

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