financial_ratio_analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds 'pure math and does not touch files,' which clarifies no side effects. It does not disclose error handling for invalid keys, but the transparency is sufficient for a read-only computation tool.

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 well-organized with Args, Returns, and Notes sections, front-loaded with a clear purpose. The long key list is necessary given the untyped schema, and every sentence provides useful information.

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?

The description provides enough detail to invoke the tool correctly, including valid keys and benchmark format. However, it does not enumerate the specific ratio names returned or the exact structure of benchmark comparisons, which would be needed since no output schema exists.

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 0% and the schema only defines generic object types. The description compensates fully by listing all valid financial_data keys with an example, and explaining industry_benchmarks as an optional dict of benchmark ratios.

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 it computes common financial ratios from raw metrics and compares them to benchmarks. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like dcf_analysis and loan_amortization.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when financial ratios are needed from raw metric inputs, with optional benchmark comparison. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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