Get Credit & Debt Ratios

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 no additional behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or time-series behavior. It is not contradictory but provides no extra context beyond the annotations.

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, compact sentence that enumerates the key outputs without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the returned data looks like, but it only lists ratio names without mentioning time-series structure or how the period filtering works. The parameter names (period, date_start, date_end) imply time series, but the description does not explicitly confirm this. Overall adequate but with a clear gap in return structure understanding.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (identifier, limit, order, period, dates, fiscal years). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, only listing the ratio types returned. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('credit and debt ratios'), and enumerates the specific ratios covered (net/total debt to EBITDA, debt to equity/capital/assets, interest coverage). This distinguishes it from sibling ratio tools like get_liquidity_ratios and get_profitability_ratios.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining credit and debt ratios but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The list of ratios gives context, but there is no direct guidance on selection among sibling ratio tools.

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