income_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the market coverage, quarterly/annual behavior, and example data horizon ('last 4 years'). While it doesn't mention rate limits or explicit read-only confirmation, the 'Get' verb implies a safe read operation and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 summary, a bullet-like list of returns, an args section, and multiple examples. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence contributes useful information with 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?

An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required. The description covers purpose, parameters, usage examples, and market scope. Minor ambiguity remains about the exact number of periods returned (annual example mentions 4 years but quarterly does not specify), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage). The description fully explains both parameters: symbol with concrete ticker examples (RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL, MSFT) and quarterly with its True/False semantics. It also shows example invocations, adding significant value 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 clearly states 'Get income statement (Profit & Loss) for a company' and lists specific P&L line items (revenue, COGS, net income, EBITDA, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like balance_sheet and cash_flow. It also mentions dual market coverage (India/US), further clarifying 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 clear context with examples for both annual and quarterly use cases, as well as Indian and US tickers. It explains the quarterly flag's effect but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools; the purpose itself differentiates it, so no exclusions are given.

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