get_company_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the tool as a read operation returning basic information, which is adequate for a simple lookup. However, it does not disclose any potential errors, prerequisites, or side effects, but given the straightforward nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences plus an example, no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key information, making it easy to scan.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, input format, return fields, and usage context. It provides an example, which is complete for a lookup tool.

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 sole parameter `ticker` has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds essential meaning by explaining it is a ticker symbol and providing an example ('AAPL'). This fully compensates for the missing schema detail, making the parameter semantics clear.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company profile') and specifies the input ('by ticker symbol'). It lists the returned fields (name, sector, industry, country, exchange) and provides an example, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_competitors or get_supply_chain.

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 states 'Use this to look up any company in the graph,' giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different functionalities, making the usage guidance clear enough.

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