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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping detail that data comes from the exchange company master and is limited to TWSE-listed companies, but says nothing about pagination or coverage gaps for unlisted firms beyond that hint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a complete field list and illustrative example queries. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by describing the return payload; structure is efficient with no filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (abbreviation, sector, officers, dates, capital, shares, address, auditor, website), which gives the agent a clear picture of the response. Combined with rich annotations, this is nearly complete for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single symbol parameter already documents code/abbreviation/Chinese-name forms, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (corporate profile of a TWSE-listed company) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, differentiate from lookalike siblings such as company_facts or entity_profile, leaning on the TWSE-specific source to implicitly distinguish it.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no mention of siblings. The example queries ('who runs Foxconn', 'when did TSMC list') imply the intended lookup scenarios, which is reasonable implied usage but short of routing the agent among the many taiwan_* and entity tools.

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