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 of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't specify whether results are cached, which fields are always present vs conditionally present, price as of what date/time, exchange coverage, or what happens for delisted/unknown tickers. The vague 'etc.' signals incomplete disclosure of return content.

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?

A single, efficient sentence front-loads the purpose. The 'etc.' is slightly vague but acceptable. No wasted words or redundancy. Could arguably be a touch more specific about scope, but it's appropriately sized.

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 tool has an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description for return-value explanation. However, given the potential source variance between VCI and KBS and the fact that 'overview' is an aggregator-style tool with many siblings, the description could explain what distinguishes VCI from KBS or note coverage differences. The complexity is moderate and the output schema helps, so a 3 is fair.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds marginal insight by implying what data fields the overview contains, but doesn't explain the source semantics (what VCI vs KBS differ in) or clarify the symbol format beyond examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('company overview information') and lists example fields (industry, market cap, description). It distinguishes from sibling tools by its scope—it's the profile/research tool among data-focused siblings (stock_history, financial_*). Lacks a fully specific resource noun but is adequately clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention which siblings to prefer for specific data needs (e.g., financial statements vs overview), and doesn't state any prerequisites like needing the company to be listed on a particular exchange. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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