get_company_financials

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions 'supported' metrics and 'plot-ready' outputs, hinting at limitations without specifics. It does not explain contact_email requirements, data sources, rate limits, or error behavior for unsupported companies.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise.

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 tool's complexity (financial domain, 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of many sibling analysis tools, the description is incomplete. It omits which metrics are supported, what 'plot-ready' implies, and how this tool fits with other financial data tools, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain cik, contact_email, or years. The word 'annual' only tangentially relates to the years parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 returns 'supported annual financial metrics and plot-ready histories for a company,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_financial_ratios or get_company_chart_data, so it misses a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, without mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names.

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