get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns specific data fields, which is helpful, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is cached or fresh. For a data retrieval tool, this is a notable gap.

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 relatively concise at two sentences, front-loading the key purpose. The bullet points in the second sentence are clear, though they could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, but the first sentence could be merged with the second.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values in detail. The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), and the description covers the core purpose and data types. However, missing behavioral transparency (e.g., data staleness) slightly reduces 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 schema coverage is 100% (one parameter), and the schema description already states it expects a Yahoo ticker or ISIN, with a note about using 'search' for names. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 that the tool retrieves a company profile and key statistics for a Yahoo symbol. It lists specific data fields (name, sector, valuation metrics, business summary), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote (pricing focus) or get_financials (financial statements). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from get_company_info or note that other siblings like get_holders or get_insider_activity might overlap in some data points.

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 implies usage when a company profile is needed, and the input schema explicitly mentions using 'search' first for company names. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when only quote data is needed, use get_quote) or which sibling tools are alternatives for overlapping data (e.g., valuation metrics might also be in get_quote).

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