get_company_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and there is no contradiction. The description adds only the content inventory of the result, which is thin behavioral context and partly redundant given an output schema exists; nothing about failures, rate limits, or data freshness is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of return fields. Two sentences with no filler, though the field list is somewhat list-heavy rather than value-adding.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It adequately conveys purpose and scope; the only real gap is missing usage routing among the many overlapping sibling tools.

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 fully documents the single 'symbol' parameter, including ISIN/ticker examples and the 'use search first' rule. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('company profile and key statistics') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a profile/valuation lookup rather than a raw price quote. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_quote, get_financials, or get_industry, which overlap on 'statistics'.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance appears in the description. The helpful hint 'For a company name, use search first' lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description, and no alternative for quote/financial data is suggested despite many overlapping siblings.

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