CompanyScope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses: data source (SEC EDGAR), empty-result behavior for invalid inputs ('will return no results'), update frequency ('as companies file'), and detailed return payload structure. Missing only edge case details (rate limits, auth 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?

Four sentences efficiently structured: action+source, return payload enumeration (necessary due to no output schema), scope constraints, and data freshness. Front-loaded with verb, zero redundancy, every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool without output schema or annotations, the description is complete: it comprehensive lists return values, documents scope limitations, and explains data temporality. No gaps requiring inference.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed description and examples for company_name parameter. The description reinforces the parameter's semantic domain ('US public companies') but does not add syntax guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'financial data' and authoritative source 'SEC EDGAR filings'. Explicitly scopes to 'US public companies' which distinguishes it from siblings like get_corporate_registry or lookup_company that likely handle broader entity 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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance: 'Only works for companies that file with the SEC — private companies and non-US companies will return no results.' This clearly defines the tool's boundaries, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use for those excluded cases.

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