get_fins_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond these: supported plans, the 12-week delay for free plan data, and the requirement that either code or date must be specified. It also notes the FiscalPeriod label values, which helps set expectations. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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. The opening line is immediately actionable, followed by a compact list of return fields, then plan/delay notes, then parameter details. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff or 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 tool has only two optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, usage priority, data freshness caveats, and parameter formats. It explains the 'either code or date' constraint. Nothing critical is missing for an effective invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It does an excellent job: code is explained with format (5 digits), an example (27800), and a nuance (4-digit codes match ordinary shares only). Date is explained with accepted formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD) and the meaning of the parameter. This goes far beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Use this first for any financial metric query' and immediately specifies the exact output: 'quarterly financials: revenue, operating profit, net income, EPS/BPS/CF, dividends, and earnings forecasts.' This clearly states the verb (returns), resource (quarterly financials), and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_fins_details or get_fins_dividend by positioning it as the entry point for financial 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 gives an explicit usage instruction ('Use this first for any financial metric query') and lists concrete examples (EPS, BPS, 売上, 利益, 配当, 業績予想). It also mentions supported plans and the free-plan delay. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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