get_fins_summary

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns quarterly financials with specific fields, indicates data delay for Free plan, and clarifies that fiscal period labels are as given. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence captures the primary purpose, followed by details on output, plans, and parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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, the description does not need to detail return values but provides a high-level list. It covers parameters, plans, and data delay. It is mostly complete, though it could mention that it only covers Japanese equities.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: code (5 digits, 4-digit for ordinary shares) and date (formats, meaning). It also clarifies that either must be specified, which is not in the schema. This exceeds minimal requirements.

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 it is the first tool to use for any financial metric query, listing specific metrics (EPS, BPS, etc.) and positioning it as a starting point. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fins_details and get_fins_dividend by being a summary tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first for any financial metric query' and notes plan availability and data delays. It also requires either code or date. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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