filing_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Return', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't explain behavior around parameters like refresh (which might trigger side effects), detail levels, or edge cases. It lacks any commentary on safety, caching, or mutation.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action. However, it may be too terse for the tool's complexity, but it is appropriately concise for a summary.

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 six parameters, lack of annotations, and specific sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It doesn't mention the required filing_id, provide context on return values (though output schema exists), or explain how it differs from similar tools like financials_query. The tool is moderately complex, and the description leaves major 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for its 6 parameters. The description provides partial mapping: 'selected statements' likely refers to the statements parameter, 'bounded periods' to periods, and 'line items' to max_line_items. However, it does not explain filing_id, detail, or refresh. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description inadequately compensates.

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 selected statements with bounded periods and line items, indicating the resource (financial statements) and action (return). It is not a tautology. However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's from a filing, though the tool name and required filing_id imply this, and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like financials_query.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. Given the array of sibling tools, this is a clear gap.

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