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

Annotations cover only the read-only safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: per-field provenance envelopes (source_type, fetched_at, as_of), UNKNOWN/INSUFFICIENT_DATA staleness semantics, paid-plan gating for price_eod, unlicensed stub fields, and the assembled-not-mirrored caveat. This is exactly the kind of disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 field enumeration is front-loaded and the key constraints are stated early, but the description is very long and dense, with some detail (Tiingo attribution, the price_iex_last stub note) that adds bulk relative to decision value. It is informative but not tightly trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly — enumerating fields, provenance, staleness handling, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying that ticker matches only current EDGAR-listed tickers (renamed/delisted miss, use CIK) and that ambiguous tickers return a named-candidate error. It also notes the hyphen convention for class shares.

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 verb and resource ('Returns ONE company's reference profile') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_daily_prices (price history) and get_federal_contracts (contract detail).

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?

Gives explicit lookup rules ('exactly one of ticker/cik'), names the failure modes (renamed/delisted tickers miss, ambiguous ticker errors with candidate CIKs), and routes follow-ups to get_daily_prices and get_material_events. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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