Get Per-Share Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds a list of metrics, which clarifies the scope of data returned but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as period handling, normalization, or any quirks. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get per-share metrics') and then lists the metrics. It is concise, with no wasted words or redundancy. Every part contributes to the overall meaning.

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 and no output schema, the description does not fully explain what the response looks like (time series? object? how period filters interact?). It lists the metrics but does not clarify the output structure or behavior with parameters like limit/order/fiscal year. This is a moderate gap for a data retrieval tool.

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 all 8 parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond listing the metrics, which does not map specifically to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('per-share metrics'), and lists specific metrics (EPS, diluted EPS, revenue, EBITDA, dividends, book value, cash flow, free cash flow per share). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_statement or get_cash_flow, which would provide raw figures rather than per-share values.

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 when to use the tool (when per-share metrics are needed) via the list of metrics, but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance like 'use get_income_statement for raw income statement data.' This is implied rather than explicit.

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