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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the cost ($0.005 USDC) and the specific fields returned, which are useful. However, it does not disclose details like authentication, error handling, or the format of the response, though as a read-only tool the risk is lower.

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 extremely concise: two clauses that clearly list the return fields and the cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is quite complete. It lists the expected output fields and the cost, which are the most relevant operational details. It does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., JSON), but this is standard and not critical. Given the simple nature and absence of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 already fully documents the ticker parameter with an example (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain the parameter itself. The description indirectly clarifies that the ticker is used to fetch the listed profile fields, which provides context but no additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as returning a company profile with specific fields (name, CIK, industry, exchange, fiscal year), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_filings or get_fundamentals. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', though the tool name provides the action.

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 usage when company profile data is needed by listing the fields, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. No alternatives are referenced, and no exclusions are stated.

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