get_financial_statements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the Open DART endpoint, consolidated/separate scopes, and report types, but it omits authentication/API-key prerequisites, rate-limit behavior, and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by useful endpoint context and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds information, and the length is justified by the four parameters.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented in the description, the core call is well specified. It would be more complete with an explicit pointer to get_full_financial_statement for full statements and a mention of Open DART API-key requirements, but these are minor gaps.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: corp_code with an example, start_year/end_year format, and report_type with all allowed values and their meanings. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get key financial-statement accounts for a company across a range of years.' It lists the exact figures returned (total assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, operating profit, net income) and explicitly notes both consolidated (CFS) and separate (OFS) statements, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_full_financial_statement.

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 intended use is implied by the first sentence and the detailed report_type options, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_full_financial_statement. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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