get_financial_statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network access are covered. The description adds the output shape (CSV, one row per account, VL_CONTA and VL_CONTA_BRL columns), which is real context, but says nothing about the max_rows truncation behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the cap is hit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and output format, with the row structure following immediately. No filler, though the value-column detail is close to what the output schema likely already carries.

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, return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only profile. But for a 7-parameter extraction tool whose main failure mode is hitting max_rows, the description gives no guidance on scoping, truncation, or how the year/doc_type filters shape the result.

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%, so all seven parameters (format, doc_type, data_type, year range, max_rows) are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that cvm_codes refers to companies; it does not explain how doc_type/format interact with the returned lines.

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 a specific resource and granularity: 'full statement lines for one or more companies, as CSV', with 'one row per reported account'. That implies line-level detail as opposed to the sibling get_statement_summary without naming it, so an agent can broadly distinguish the two but gets no explicit routing 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?

Usage is only implied: 'full statement lines' suggests detailed/raw extraction rather than summarized views, but the description never says when to pick this over get_statement_summary, list_account_codes, or get_account_history. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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