balance_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific financial fields and explains the quarterly parameter's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, though 'get' implies non-mutating. It gives useful context on outputs.

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 one-line summary, listed return fields, parameter documentation, and examples. Every sentence is useful, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers its purpose, parameters, examples, and output fields. An output schema exists for return values, so the description is complete for 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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'symbol' parameter with examples (RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL, MSFT) and describes 'quarterly' with default behavior and example usage. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get balance sheet for a company.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling financial statement tools like income_statement and cash_flow. Examples further reinforce the purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when a balance sheet is needed) and provides usage examples, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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