profiles_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose any behavioral details such as output shape, pagination, or data limitations. For a simple getter, some transparency is expected, but the description is minimal and provides no depth beyond the action.

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, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the core function immediately and is well-structured for quick scanning. It earns a top score on conciseness.

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 large number of profiles_* siblings, the description is under-specified about what distinguishes this tool from profiles_summary or profiles_statistics. It also lacks any information about the return value format, which is not covered by an output schema. For a single-parameter tool, it might be minimally sufficient, but the ambiguity among siblings makes it incomplete.

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 parameter 'ticker' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Stock ticker'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a verb ('Get') and a resource ('company info / summary profile'), and ties it to a ticker. It distinguishes from many sibling tools by implying a high-level summary rather than detailed statistics, but it does not explicitly name a distinguishing sibling (e.g., profiles_summary) so it is not 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like profiles_summary, profiles_statistics, or financials_snapshot. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context. No exclusion conditions or preferred scenarios are mentioned.

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