get_company_profile

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 lookup and discloses the returned fields, but says nothing about behavior on unknown/ambiguous identifiers, required auth, or whether the call is a single deterministic lookup.

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?

Two short blocks: the payload summary first, the parameter constraint second. No filler, and the field list earns its space by telling the agent whether this tool answers the question.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the single parameter is fully explained. Only edge-case behavior (not found, ambiguous name matches) is left uncovered for a simple lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by defining the accepted identifier forms with a concrete ticker example (005930) plus corp_code and name. It stops short of format rules for corp_code or ambiguity handling.

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 the resource (company overview) and enumerates exactly what comes back: name in English/Korean, CEO, market, industry code, address, website, fiscal year-end. That lets an agent separate it from financial, filing, and shareholder siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with search_company.

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 identifier note ('accepts a ticker, corp_code, or name') implies when the tool is usable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of search_company as the alternative for discovering an unknown company.

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