get_company_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data fields returned and a coverage limitation for Indian stocks, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. This is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the field list. Every sentence adds value: the first lists the return data, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description effectively explains the return data and a key limitation (Indian stocks). It does not detail return format or error conditions, but these are minor gaps. The description is mostly complete for practical 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter. The tool description adds an example (e.g., RELIANCE.NS) and context about Indian stock limitations, which adds modest value beyond the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 the verb 'Get' with the resource 'company overview' and lists specific fundamentals (P/E ratio, EPS, market cap, etc.), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_quote (price only) and get_financials (financial statements) by specifying the scope, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 provides context by stating 'Best for US stocks. For Indian stocks, some fields may be limited,' which gives usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_financials) or when not to use it, limiting the guidance.

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