financial_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The 'generate' verb implies this is a read/query operation that produces a report, but the description doesn't disclose whether data is cached, whether the report is real-time or snapshot-based, whether fiscal_year is required for a report, or what the pricing implication ($0.15) means for repeated/redundant calls. The cost signal is disclosed but broader behavioral context is missing.

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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the 'Generate' action and includes the cost disclosure upfront. It packs purpose and deliverable content efficiently without redundancy. The '[PAID $0.15]' prefix is additive information. Minor deduction for not leveraging the available space to clarify parameter usage.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable core purpose but leaves operational gaps. It doesn't explain what 'peer comparison' entails, how peers are determined, whether historical fiscal_year inputs change the output, or what happens if fiscal_year is omitted. The absence of an output schema means the description should describe what the returned report contains, but it only lists high-level categories (metrics, ratios, peer comparison). Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. The description mentions 'key metrics, ratios, and peer comparison' which implies content but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'company' and 'fiscal_year' beyond their schema types (string). Notably, it doesn't clarify whether fiscal_year is optional (it's not in required) or what format it should take (e.g., '2023' vs 'FY2023'). The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the bare 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 states the verb ('Generate'), resource ('a financial health report'), and content ('key metrics, ratios, and peer comparison'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like company_overview and competitive_analysis by specifying the deliverable is a financial health report, though the distinction is somewhat subtle. The '[PAID $0.15]' prefix adds useful cost context not present in structured fields.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. Sibling tools like company_overview and competitive_analysis could overlap with 'financial health report' functionality, but the description doesn't clarify when this tool is preferred, or when one of the others should be used instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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