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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data scope thoroughly and clearly implies a read-only profile lookup, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or cost of the call. Given zero annotation support, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 returned-data inventory is front-loaded and the routing hint follows, with no filler. It is dense but every clause adds usable information; a slightly tighter structure would earn a 5.

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 does the heavy lifting by enumerating returned fields (financials, financing history, classification, contacts, hierarchy, tickers), so an agent knows what it gets. It stops short of confirming read-only semantics and identity/type constraints on company_id, leaving a small gap.

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 both companyid/company_id and the alias behavior are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by company_id' and adds no format, sourcing, or resolution detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

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+resource ('FULL private-company profile by company_id') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (financials, financing history, classification, HQ/contact, hierarchy, cikcode/ticker). This clearly distinguishes it from the search/list siblings that return lighter records.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: resolve the id first via search_suggest, then call this for the 'deep dive on one company.' That gives an agent a clear when-to-use trigger. It only names one alternative and gives no explicit when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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