Get Company Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: sections are fetched concurrently, each section is labelled with how much weight its numbers carry, and it distinguishes between figures from filings versus third-party feeds. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent trust the data quality.

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 description is moderately sized, with a strong front-loaded opening sentence. It includes useful context about concurrency and data provenance that earns its place. It is not as terse as a two-sentence ideal but remains well-structured and without redundancy, so a 4 is suitable.

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 compensates by explaining what the response contains (sections, weighting of numbers, concurrent fetching) and the overall intent of a comprehensive profile. It does not enumerate all return fields, but the sections parameter in the schema lists the datatypes covered, and the description's concepts are sufficient for an agent to understand expected output.

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%, with detailed descriptions for 'symbol', 'detail', and 'sections'. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already provides ample guidance. Since the baseline for high coverage is 3, this score reflects that the description is not required to compensate and does so adequately via the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Everything worth knowing about a company, in one call. Start here.' It specifies the resource (company profile) and differentiates from siblings by framing it as the initial hub tool for 'tell me about X' queries, listing the types of information covered (business, SEC filings, insider activity, market, stock trading).

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 description explicitly tells users to 'Start here' and positions the tool as the default entry point for broad company inquiries, eliminating the need to know which other tool to use. It implies using more specialized sibling tools later for depth, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

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