get_financial_metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core function but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or output format (e.g., time series structure). For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with clarifying examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and why but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, error cases) and explicit sibling differentiation, which would be needed for full completeness in this context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (company, metric, taxonomy). The description adds value by providing examples of metrics (Revenue, Assets, NetIncome) and hinting at the 'history' aspect, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's in 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'financial metric's history for a company', with examples (Revenue, Assets, NetIncome over multiple years) that specify the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company_facts (general facts) or get_company_filings (filings) by focusing on metric history, but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_industry_metric (industry-level) or list_common_metrics (list of metrics).

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 implies usage by mentioning 'over multiple years', suggesting it's for historical trend analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company_facts (which might include similar data) or list_common_metrics (for discovering metrics). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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