get_bse_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no statement of what is returned or whether a miss produces an error versus an empty result. The only technical detail (6-digit format) already lives in the schema, so there is effectively no added behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource and keying identifier come first. The trailing '(bse.cn)' parenthetical is terse to the point of being ambiguous, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter resolver with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient: an agent knows the exchange, the identifier type and that a lookup occurs. The gaps are the unmentioned name lookup path and any failure semantics, which are minor given the full schema coverage and existing output schema.

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% and the schema already documents the accepted ticker prefixes (430xxx/83xxxx/87xxxx/88xxxx/920xxx), so the description need not repeat them. However, saying 'by 6-digit ticker' omits the name-matching half of the ticker_or_name parameter that the schema exposes, adding no meaning beyond or in fact slightly less than 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (BSE-listed company) keyed by a 6-digit ticker, and the BSE framing distinguishes it from get_sse_company, get_szse_company, get_hk_company and the generic get_company. It is slightly narrower than the input schema, which also accepts a company name via ticker_or_name, so the stated purpose under-describes the tool's actual lookup capability.

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?

Usage is implied by the exchange qualifier rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this for BSE companies' when it already knows the exchange, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative resolver. No prerequisites or routing guidance are given.

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