fortune_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the data source ('recovered from the company's own fortune.com page') and the breadth of returned content, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool performs live scraping, whether it requires network access, whether it can fail for companies without a fortune.com page, or what the response structure looks like. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a Fortune company profile') before enumerating contents. Every clause adds value: the content list tells the agent what to expect, and the source note clarifies provenance. It is slightly long but not bloated, and the structure is logical.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and return contents. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases: what happens if both url and slug are provided, whether the slug is case-sensitive, how to discover valid slugs, and whether the tool returns raw HTML or structured data. These gaps are not critical for basic invocation but leave an agent uncertain in non-trivial scenarios.

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 schema already documents both parameters (url and slug) with examples. The description adds the context that the URL must be a canonical fortune.com/company/<slug>/ URL and that slug is an alternative, which slightly reinforces the schema. However, it does not explain how the two parameters interact (e.g., precedence, whether both can be provided, or how to obtain a slug). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a Fortune company profile') and enumerates the content categories returned (fact sheet, rankings, workplace data, earnings links, social accounts). It also states the data source ('recovered from the company's own fortune.com page'), which distinguishes it from generic company lookup tools. Among siblings like fortune_article, fortune_ranking, and fortune_companies, this description makes the tool's scope 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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single company's profile from fortune.com, and the parameter schema clarifies that either a slug or URL can be used. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like fortune_companies or fortune_ranking, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., not for searching companies by name). The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for a company-profile request, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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