Get Working Capital 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 meaningful context about the returned metrics (turnover, days, cash conversion cycle), which helps the agent know what to expect from the tool. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the complete purpose into one line with no fluff. Every word earns its place, listing the key metric categories efficiently.

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?

For a read-only ratio tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient: it names the returned metrics and is consistent with the read-only annotation. A longer description might elaborate on response structure, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the existing structured metadata.

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 fully described in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't; it instead clarifies output content. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'working-capital ratios' and enumerates the exact metrics (receivable/inventory/payable turnover and days, cash conversion cycle). This cleanly differentiates it from sibling ratio tools like get_profitability_ratios or get_liquidity_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 makes the domain clear by specifying working-capital efficiency and the exact metrics returned, allowing an agent to infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the many sibling ratio tools.

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