ratio_analysis

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

The description adds 'deterministic' and 'Pure calculation — no search, no LLM tokens' beyond the annotations, which already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. It explains that the tool is side-effect-free and repeatable, but it doesn't detail error handling or output formatting. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose and resources, and every clause adds value. The second sentence clarifies behavioral constraints with six words. No redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the result looks like beyond 'financial ratio analysis' and 'CAGR trend.' It also doesn't mention that statements must be chronological (though the schema does). For a moderate-complexity calculation tool, the description covers purpose and behavior but leaves the return format ambiguous, so an agent might not know how to use the output downstream.

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 has descriptions for only 1 of 2 parameters (statements), leaving companyName undocumented. The description repeats the concept of 'FinancialStatement objects' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the role of companyName or how the input should be structured beyond what the schema already states. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'Performs' and names the exact deliverable: 'financial ratio analysis' with categories and 'multi-period CAGR trend'. It also differentiates from siblings by stating 'Pure calculation — no search, no LLM tokens,' making it clear this is a quantitative tool rather than a search or generation tool.

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 phrase 'Pure calculation — no search, no LLM tokens' provides an implicit exclusion, telling the agent when not to use this tool. It also implies the input should come from a source like financial_statements, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe a decision process between this and report generation tools.

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