get_fins_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: Premium plan restriction, the nuance that 4-digit codes match ordinary shares only, and that 'date' returns statements disclosed on that date. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not cover error conditions or rate limits.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the primary use case, then the alternative, then return details, then parameter constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the Args section is concise yet complete. No fluff.

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 tool's complexity (2 params with optional/nullable types, annotations, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, plan restrictions, and GAAP/IFRS support. The output schema exists, so return format needs no description. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 fully compensates with detailed Arg explanations: code format (5 digits, examples, 4-digit meaning), date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and semantics, plus the requirement that exactly one of them must be specified. This is essential and well done.

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 states clearly that the tool returns detailed financial statement line items (BS, PL, CF) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_fins_summary, noting when to use which. It uses a specific verb 'returns' with a clear resource and scope.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use only when individual BS/PL/CF line items are needed' and points to get_fins_summary for common metrics, including comparative advantages (faster/cached, available to all plans). It also states a precondition: 'Either code or date must be specified.'

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