get_company

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of rate limits, authentication, or return format), so it does not add value beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a strategy and example. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating the Args section).

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?

The description lists the returned fields (name, industry, listing date, shares) and has an output schema (though not detailed here). It is fairly complete for a simple read operation, but could mention any limitations (e.g., supported exchanges).

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides examples and format guidance for the symbol parameter (e.g., '000001.SZ', 'AAPL.US'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type string.

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 states the tool retrieves a company overview with specific fields (name, industry, listing date, shares), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_financial_metrics that serve different purposes.

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 includes a strategy 'Directly invoke with symbol' and an example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_financial_metrics) or when not to use it.

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