Get Financial Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description goes beyond these by adding meaningful behavioral context: values are deduplicated, drawn from the most recent annual filing, and include computed ratios. This provides useful data-source and processing transparency without contradicting 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-loaded with the core purpose, then a concrete list of returned fields and data quality notes. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates raw values and computed ratios, and specifies data source and deduplication behavior. It is reasonably complete, but could have mentioned units (e.g., USD) or filing date specifics; still, it covers the essential context for understanding the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100% (only 'cik' is described as 'Company CIK number'). The description adds no extra detail about the parameter, such as format or examples. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies without additional compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'financial summary' and explicitly states it includes computed ratios. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_financial_metric (likely a single metric) and analyze_financials (deeper analysis) by positioning itself as a comprehensive snapshot.

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 implies use for a broad financial overview but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusionary guidance. There is no comparison to get_financial_metric or analyze_financials, leaving usage context implicit rather than stated.

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