Company profile

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. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the ISIN-to-ticker resolution via 'resolved_symbol'. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes for invalid symbols.

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 purpose in the first sentence, then a dense but useful field enumeration, ending with the ISIN caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical metric list is long enough to border on a return-value dump.

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, full parameter coverage, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description only needs to frame scope and it does so, including the ISIN edge case. It could be slightly stronger by naming which sibling to use for pure price data.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted ticker/ISIN formats and the 'search' fallback. The description's ISIN note is largely redundant with the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a company profile and key statistics') and enumerates the returned data (sector/industry, employees, valuation metrics, business summary), which separates it from get_quote and get_financials. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of static profile fields signals this is the tool for company-level facts rather than price history or statements. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and the 'use search first for a company name' routing lives in the schema, not the description.

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