financials_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are filtered ('only selected'), span multiple periods ('multi-period'), and include provenance, which adds useful context. However, it does not explain the nature of provenance, any limitations, or whether the query is read-only, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 key information with no redundancy. Every phrase ('only selected', 'multi-period', 'with provenance') contributes 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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are not required. However, given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and several closely related sibling tools, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics needed to fully disambiguate. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'selected' to the 'codes' parameter and 'multi-period' to 'periods', but it does not explain the meaning of 'source', 'company_id', or how the parameters interact. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('financial facts') with qualifiers ('selected multi-period', 'with provenance'), making the core function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like historical_facts_query or company_facts by emphasizing selectivity and provenance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as company_facts or filing_financials. The description only implies a narrowed scope ('only selected') but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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