get_company_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: sections are fetched concurrently, and results include a weight label indicating data provenance (filing vs. third-party feed). This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it doesn't mention rate limits, errors, or partial failure behavior.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with a clear headline. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states value, the second explains use case and behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the tool's role as an aggregator, lists content categories, explains concurrent fetching, and mentions data-weight labeling. With an output schema present, return value details need not be described. Missing are failure-mode or performance caveats, but overall the description provides sufficient context for a read-only aggregation 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional param-specific meanings; it merely references sections being overrideable, which is already in the schema. The weighting/concurrency note is more about output behavior than input semantics.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Everything worth knowing about a company, in one call. Start here.' It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by positioning as the entry point that answers 'tell me about X' without needing to know which other tool to use, listing concrete content areas (business, SEC filings, insiders, market, stock trades).

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Start here' and 'Answers tell me about X' indicate use for broad company queries. It implies this is the first stop before diving into specialized tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases where specific data is needed.

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