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

Annotations already disclose that the call is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the specific payload contents (sector, industry, business description). It does not disclose response shape or exact-match failure behavior, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 sentence, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it returns and that the symbol must be exact) come first.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the description states the return contents despite the lack of an output schema. It is complete enough for a basic call, though it leaves error/empty-result behavior unspecified.

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 descriptions cover symbol and exchange, and the description reinforces the exact-symbol requirement without adding new semantics. The limit parameter is constrained to 1 but has no description, leaving a small gap; with 67% schema coverage this sits at the acceptable baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('sector, industry, and business description') for 'one exact company symbol.' That scope is enough to separate it from sibling tools like company.analyst_research, company.financials, and market.search.

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 phrase 'for one exact company symbol' implies the intended condition: call this when the agent already has a precise symbol. It does not explicitly name alternatives for symbol resolution (e.g., market.search) or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is only implied.

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