financial_statements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it handles this well: it discloses the data is public SEC data, requires no vendor key, and represents reported actuals (not estimates), which is critical context for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. It stops short of describing return structure or pagination, but the metric list gives a solid sense of content.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the core purpose and metrics list are front-loaded, and the accessibility note is appended. Every phrase earns its place, and the metric enumeration is efficient rather than padded.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, the specific fields returned, the period dimension, and the data provenance/accessibility. The only notable omission is the exact accepted period values, which is a minor gap given the description already signals quarter/year granularity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'by quarter or year' documents the period parameter's accepted values, and symbol is implied as the ticker. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its schema name or state the exact accepted period strings ('quarterly'/'annual'), leaving symbol semantics to inference.

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?

States a specific resource (reported financials from the company's own SEC XBRL filings) and enumerates the exact metrics returned (revenue, gross profit, operating income, etc.). The phrase 'company's own SEC XBRL filings' clearly distinguishes this from estimate-based tools like analyst_view or earnings_context, making it identifiable against the 50+ siblings.

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 on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as key_stats, earnings_history, or analyst_view, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent note is 'needs no vendor key', which is an accessibility statement rather than a selection criterion. An agent must infer when reported XBRL financials are the right source.

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