calculate_financial_health_score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions output structure (breakdowns, insights) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data source, side effects, rate limits, or read-only status. Minimal transparency beyond basic functionality.

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, each adding value. Purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or irrelevant information. Efficiently communicates the tool's function, use case, and output.

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?

Explains input (ticker, custom weights), processing (profitability, liquidity, etc.), and output (0-100 score with breakdowns). Without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure. Could mention limitations or data freshness, but overall complete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context for the weights parameter ('custom weighting to match your investment strategy'), but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema includes. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states it calculates a comprehensive financial health score based on multiple metrics, and specifies the return value (0-100 weighted score). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on overall financial strength rather than specific aspects like insider activity or sentiment.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when evaluating the overall financial strength of a company for investment decisions, risk assessment, or portfolio screening.' Missing explicit 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions, but context is clear.

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