get_financials

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

It discloses useful behavioral details such as output metadata (taxonomy, currency, presentation format) and historical ticker resolution ('FB' → META). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it omits potential edge cases like invalid ticker behavior, rate limits, or how the 'period' and 'quarter' parameters affect the response.

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 compact at three sentences plus an Args line, with the primary purpose front-loaded. However, the Args section only details ticker, which is slightly misleading because other parameters exist, and the structure could be improved by listing all parameters or explaining the period/year/quarter semantics more clearly.

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's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the main entry points (statement type, years, ticker) and output metadata. However, it omits parameter semantics for year/quarter/period and lacks sibling differentiation, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent to invoke it 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?

The description explains the ticker parameter in detail and mentions statement and years, but the input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The 'year', 'quarter', and 'period' parameters are not explained at all, leaving the agent uncertain about how to request specific fiscal years or quarterly data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no schema-level descriptions.

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 retrieves financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) from SEC filings for US public companies, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_financial_metric, which likely focus on individual metrics, by emphasizing full financial statements.

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 usage hints for statement='all' and years=N for trend analysis, which implies when to use different parameter configurations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternative sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving the guidance partly implied rather than explicit.

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