Get Balance Sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the types of data returned but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, filtering behavior, or date-range handling beyond what the schema parameters imply. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key output categories. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It lacks explicit usage guidance and does not describe the structure of the returned balance sheet data in detail, but the schema and annotations compensate for much of the missing context. It does not fully clarify what 'key balance-sheet ratios' includes or that multiple periods are returned.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific explanations; the listed data fields (assets, liabilities, etc.) refer to the response content rather than input parameters. The schema carries the full burden for parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'balance sheet data' with enumerated contents (assets, liabilities, debt, equity, shares outstanding, ratios). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_statement or get_cash_flow.

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 context that this tool is for balance sheet data, which implicitly signals when to use it. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route balance-sheet-related requests here.

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