lookup_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and input types, but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential errors, response format, or limitations. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 is adequate for a simple lookup, but it lacks details on the return value ('EDGAR identity' is vague) and error behavior. Since there is no output schema to clarify this, the description leaves a noticeable gap in completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context to the single 'query' parameter by specifying acceptable inputs (ticker, CIK, or company name) beyond what the schema provides (which has no description). It clarifies the expected format, though it could also mention output details.

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 tool's purpose: to resolve a ticker, CIK, or company name to its EDGAR identity. It specifies the verb ('resolve') and the resource ('EDGAR identity'), and the accepted input types distinguish it from sibling tools that deal with concepts or filings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without situating it relative to sibling tools.

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