get_company_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the A-share scope and the data fields but says nothing about performance, errors, data freshness, or whether the call is read-only. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about side effects or constraints beyond the scope.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence listing the returned fields and the scope, followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler, making it highly efficient.

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 purpose, scope, and parameter meaning, and an output schema exists to define the return structure. However, it omits details like symbol format, behavior on invalid symbols, and any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). For a simple tool, this is borderline adequate but leaves several practical questions unanswered.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), so the description's 'symbol: 股票代码' adds essential meaning—identifying it as a stock code. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., sh/sz prefix, 6-digit code) or any validation rules, leaving ambiguity for edge cases.

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 fetches company profile data (introduction, main business, actual controller, employee count, industry, concept sectors) and explicitly limits to A-shares. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or get_financial_statement, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools or conditions for selection, leaving an agent to infer from the field list alone. This is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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