Get key financials over several years

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior ascending. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it reads one filing per year, is slower than get_financials, corrected reports replace originals, and years without machine-readable reports are skipped. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output shape are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 fully covers purpose, output ordering, usage boundaries, performance, data-correctness behavior, and skipped years. The input schema documents all parameters, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter (cvr, scope, years) already thoroughly documented including format, defaults, constraints, and semantics. The description adds output-shape context but not additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States the specific verb 'Return', the resource ('a Danish company's latest annual reports'), and the output shape ('one row per reporting year, newest first'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_financials by naming the sibling and the difference in scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool for trends and growth, and use get_financials when a single year with previous-year comparison and auditor is sufficient. Also gives practical caveats about speed and skipped years, leaving little to inference.

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