company_financials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that outputs can include sources ('natural language with sources') but does not mention side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or permissions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by an Args block. It is efficient and front-loads the purpose, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), return values are covered. The description explains the input parameters and output formats. It does not mention edge cases or limitations, but is complete enough for a straightforward research tool.

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%, but the description includes a detailed Args section explaining all five parameters, their types, formats, and defaults (e.g., 'output_format: answer for natural language with sources, structured for JSON'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Get financial information about a company' and lists specific metrics (revenue, profitability, ARR, MRR, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like business model, culture, or leadership.

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 implicitly indicates usage for financial research through its domain focus, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or prerequisites. The sibling tools are distinct, so confusion is minimal.

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