company_ratios

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as retrieving data but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention error handling, data sources, or limitations. The behavioral transparency is inadequate for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences of purpose and two example calls. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of output schema, the description does not explain the return format, time period, or pagination. The examples partially compensate, but the information is not fully complete for a typical usage scenario. Adequate but leaves 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 input schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (67% coverage). The description adds value through examples showing typical usage (e.g., 'identifier: AAPL', 'limit: 12') and clarifies that omitting 'ratio' returns all available ratios. This adds practical meaning beyond the 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves financial ratio time series and lists categories (profitability, liquidity, leverage, efficiency). It effectively communicates the core function but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'company_financials'.

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 mentions it is 'useful for valuation and comparative analysis', providing a usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use the tool or how it compares to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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