get_company_subsidiaries

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

No annotations exist, and the description only specifies inputs and returns. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 structured as a docstring with sections for Args and Returns, keeping it organized. However, it includes redundant type information already present in the schema and could be more streamlined.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential input-output behavior. It misses potential edge cases or return format details, but is adequate for basic use.

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 description adds meaning to all three parameters beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'filter_by' and 'output_format' have specific options, and that 'toon' is optimized for AI. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'company subsidiaries', with a specific source 'stock market'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on other financial data types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like get_company_overview or get_company_events. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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