financial_statements

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: the source waterfall order, inline computation of ratios and CAGR, and the structured not_available fallback instead of bare nulls. These details help set expectations accurately.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value, covering the waterfall, return shape, inline computation, and error handling. It could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing, but it is well-structured.

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 (nested context object, multiple sources, no output schema), the description covers data sources, return shape, and error behavior adequately. However, it does not clarify the role of the 'listed' and 'country' fields in the context object, which are only partially described in the schema.

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 adds no additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With only 50% schema description coverage and no parameter-specific clarification, this dimension falls short.

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 the tool retrieves financial statements, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the output shape as the one consumed by ratio_analysis, providing clear 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It mentions the return shape is the same as ratio_analysis consumes, which implies a use case, but it does not name alternatives or provide conditions for selection.

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