financial_statements

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description transparently reveals the multi-source fallback strategy and guarantees never returning bare nulls, instead returning a structured not_available status with the checked sources. This is valuable behavioral detail not fully captured by annotations alone, though it does not mention every edge case.

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 structured and information-dense, with each sentence adding meaningful detail about the source order, output format, computed metrics, and fallback behavior. It avoids repetition and fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the nested context object and no output schema, the description provides sufficient operational context: source priority, default ratio computation, and non-null fallback behavior. It does not explicitly address ambiguous combinations like both 'company' and 'sector' being provided, but the schema enum and descriptions cover most necessary input semantics.

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 descriptions cover about 50% of parameters, and the tool description adds context about output and fallback behavior but not comprehensive per-parameter semantics. It clarifies that 'sector' is for sector-level research and that includeRatios controls inline computation, but parameters like 'company', 'country', and 'listed' lack explicit semantic expansion in the description.

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 financial statements and details the source waterfall (screener.in, filing PDFs, HTML, text). It also specifies the output shape (FinancialStatement[] consumed by ratio_analysis) and default inline computation of ratios and CAGR, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 explains what the tool does and its fallback behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as ratio_analysis or company_profile. It mentions the same output shape as ratio_analysis but lacks direct guidance on use cases versus alternatives.

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