get_financial_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool provides all accounts and covers specific company types and report years. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, data volume, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects, which are relevant for a retrieval 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-structured with a summary line, contextual scope, and a clear argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 explains the parameters and the overall purpose but does not describe the return value format or structure. Given there is no output schema, this omission is notable. For a tool with 5 parameters and a specific domain (XBRL financial statements), more detail on the output would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by explaining each parameter in the Args section, including allowable values (e.g., reprt_code codes, fs_div options, sj_nm choices). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool retrieves all account subjects of XBRL financial statements from periodic reports, specifying the scope (listed and major unlisted companies). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_corp_code, which is referenced as a prerequisite, and other tools that serve different purposes.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for retrieving financial statement data and explicitly instructs to use get_corp_code first to obtain corp_code. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools have distinct purposes, making it implicitly clear.

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