get_company_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that bare symbols are normalized to .NS, that an explicit .NS/.BO suffix selects the exchange, and that non-Indian symbols are rejected rather than silently returned. This covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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 about 70 words with a front-loaded purpose sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds unique value: normalization, market scope, rejection behavior, and parameter examples. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical input format and market restrictions, so an agent can invoke it correctly. It stops just short of spelling out error behavior for unknown Indian symbols, but that is a minor omission given the output schema already documents the return shape.

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 only declares a required string 'symbol' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by giving concrete examples ('RELIANCE', 'TCS.NS', 'TCS.BO') and explaining the default NSE normalization, which is precisely the semantic information an agent needs.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the company profile/overview') and limits scope to NSE/BSE-listed Indian equities, which clearly separates it from sibling tools dealing with financial statements, ratios, or news. The exchange-suffix behavior further clarifies exactly what kind of lookup this performs.

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 gives useful context about Indian-market-only coverage and symbol normalization, but it never explicitly compares against any sibling tool or states a condition for choosing this over alternatives. The 'when to use' is only implied by the first sentence, not spelled out.

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