get_full_financial_statements

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world call, so safety is covered. The description adds the behavioral note that results are paginated and must be continued via offset/limit, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about ordering, totals, or truncation behavior.

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, no filler, with the core action stated first and the pagination instruction second. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and under-half schema coverage, the description is on the thin side. The pagination hint is helpful, but the meaning of the statement type and fs_div options, plus the relationship to the summary sibling, are absent.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, yet it only addresses offset/limit. The enum parameters statement, report, and fs_div are left undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent gets no semantic explanation of what BS/IS/CIS/CF/SCE mean or how fs_div fallback behaves.

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 concrete verb and resource (retrieve full financial statement accounts plus original amounts), and the word '전체' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_financial_summary. It stops short of naming that sibling or the boundary explicitly, so the distinction must be inferred.

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 one clear usage rule — that offset/limit are for continuing a paged read — but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_financial_summary or compare_financials, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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