fq_get_financial_ratios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal value by hinting at CSV parameter format for years/quarters, but does not explain behavior like data ranges or output structure.

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 extremely short (9 words), which is concise but lacks essential information. It is not unnecessarily verbose, but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists, many siblings), the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what financial ratios are returned, how to interpret results, or how this tool fits with others like fq_get_basic_info or fq_get_financial_statements.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions 'years/quarters as CSV when needed'. It does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'tickers' or 'quarters', nor their expected format beyond CSV. The 'years' and 'quarters' parameters are not distinguished.

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 'Financial ratios' merely restates the tool name, lacking a specific verb or action. It does not clarify what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, calculate) or distinguish it from siblings like fq_get_financial_statements or fq_get_valuation_timeseries.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of financial ratio retrieval compared to other financial data tools is entirely absent.

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