get_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it adds meaningful details: currency unit (₹ crore), fiscal year end (31 Mar), and data window lengths for annual and quarterly periods. It does not describe the full return format or the exact meaning of 'all', but as a read-oriented financial data tool it conveys the key behavioral scope.

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 compact, front-loads the core meaning, and uses a readable pipe-separated format for allowed values. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The description covers parameter choices and data ranges but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools and does not clarify what the output looks like, especially for 'all'. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about expected return structure or exclusions would make it more complete.

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, and it does for the two optional parameters by listing allowed values and period ranges. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, especially around annual vs quarterly windows. The required 'symbol' parameter is left to inference, though its meaning is fairly obvious from the tool name and context.

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 identifies the resource as financial statements and adds the unit (₹ crore), which gives concrete meaning. It enumerates statement types and period options, making the tool's scope specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from close siblings like get_key_ratios or get_company_profile.

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 gives useful context about available periods (annual last 4-5 fiscal years, quarterly last 5 quarters) and statement types, which implies when it would be used. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage guidance 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.