company_profileAn Indian pharmaceutical company group in NPPA's filings: the names it files under, counts of packs, brands and molecules, its largest molecules, batches CDSCO declared not of standard quality, and packs filed above the price ceiling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | company name, e.g. 'Cipla', or its counterfoil.in page URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable provenance (NPPA filings, CDSCO declarations) and scope of aggregation. It does not disclose what happens on ambiguous or unresolved company names, which matters because the parameter accepts either a name or a URL.
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?
One dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the entity type and data source. The trailing list of included aggregates is long but each item earns its place as a return-value preview.
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?
With no output schema, the description must stand in for return values, and the enumeration does that reasonably well. It leaves gaps around response shape, name-resolution behavior, and error cases, which is meaningful for a lookup tool keyed on free-text company names.
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% and the single parameter documents both accepted forms (bare name like 'Cipla' or a counterfoil.in page URL). The phrase 'the names it files under' hints that aliases are resolved, which is a small addition, but nothing about matching behavior or fallback is specified.
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?
Names the resource precisely ('An Indian pharmaceutical company group in NPPA's filings') and enumerates exactly what the profile aggregates: filing names, pack/brand/molecule counts, top molecules, NSQ batches, above-ceiling packs. The verb is implicit ('profile' as a noun phrase) rather than an explicit 'returns/fetches', which keeps it just short of a 5, but an agent can tell this apart from get_brand or search_medicines.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the siblings above_ceiling, failed_batches, compare_prices, get_brand, or search_medicines, even though several overlap in subject matter (price ceiling, failed batches). Usage is inferable only from the enumerated contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.