get_stock_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output-format switching (text default vs. json) and the optional officers expansion, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, multi-symbol batching behavior, or error handling on invalid symbols.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and returned fields first, then usage context, then the two optional-parameter behaviors. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover content fields and both optional parameters, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around what happens with multiple symbols and error cases, keeping it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents format, symbols, and include_officers including their defaults. The description largely restates that (format=json, include_officers=true, space-separated symbols) rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns company profile') and enumerates the returned fields (sector, industry, summary, governance), which differentiates it from data-oriented siblings like get_financials or get_stock_price. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, get_stock_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use for company overview' gives an implied context for selection, and it flags the include_officers option for a specific need. However, with 19 siblings there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., vs. get_stock_summary), so selection still requires inference.

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