get_financial_statements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any potential limitations, errors, authentication needs, or return structure. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the purpose and the key parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording. It could be slightly more informative, but it earns its place without unnecessary details.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), and the description conveys the primary purpose and content. However, it lacks detail on what the actual output looks like (e.g., structure of balance sheet and P&L data) and any edge cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is barely adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already documents the sole parameter 'inn' with description 'INN of the company', and schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'by INN' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional format or validity constraints are mentioned.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('financial statements'), and specifies the content ('balance sheet, P&L') and the key parameter ('by INN'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is better than vague but not perfect differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'by INN' but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need a valid INN from search_company) or when to prefer other tools like get_company_details. There is no explicit context or exclusion, so the agent must infer usage on its own.

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