analyze_company

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. It hints at output structure for LLM narrative but does not clarify operational characteristics.

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?

One clear sentence stating purpose, followed by a bullet-style list of components. Every part adds value; no redundant or unnecessary text. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (bundles many components) and absence of output schema, the description is insufficient. It lists what is included but does not describe output format, how to interpret results, or any integration details, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use without further info.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'query' as a company name or ticker, adding meaning. However, it omits any explanation for 'market' parameter, which has a default of 'IN', leaving ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states it provides 'Full investment analysis for a company name or ticker' and lists all bundled components (profile, ratios, peer comparison, DCF, moat, risk, management, news, score, SWOT seeds, growth-driver hints), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover individual aspects.

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?

Implicitly suggests use when a comprehensive analysis is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. individual tools, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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