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. The description adds the data source (SEC EDGAR) and the returned field set, but says nothing about behavior for invalid or unknown tickers, latency, or whether results are cached – minor gaps for a simple read.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and source, then a tight colon-delimited field list. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete – the field enumeration effectively substitutes for a return-value description. Only the failure mode for an unrecognized ticker/CIK is left unstated.

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% and the single parameter already documents both the ticker form and the CIK fallback for delisted/acquired/renamed companies. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Get general information") and resource ("a public company from SEC EDGAR") and enumerates the exact data returned, which implicitly separates it from sec_company_facts (financial data) and sec_lookup_cik (CIK resolution). It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 implied by the field list – an agent can infer this is the profile/metadata call, not the financial-data call. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to sec_company_facts or sec_lookup_cik when those would be the better choice.

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