resolve_company

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail about what comes back — canonical name, SEC CIK, tickers, filing count, and fiscal year end formatted as MMDD with a concrete example. It stops short of explaining lookup failure or ambiguity behavior, which matters for a resolver.

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 tight sentence: verb and accepted inputs first, return payload second, format clarification last with a worked example. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including the MMDD fiscal-year-end convention. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — unknown or ambiguous queries — for a single-parameter tool of modest complexity.

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 'query' parameter is already documented with examples ('3M', 'MMM', 'J&J'). The description restates the accepted identifier types without adding syntax or normalization rules beyond the schema, so 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 ('look up') and resource ('a company') plus the accepted identifier forms (name, ticker, CIK). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_filings or search_filings, which operate on filings rather than resolving company identity.

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 phrase 'returns the canonical name the other tools use' implicitly positions this as the entry point before calling filing or XBRL tools, which is real usage context. However, it never explicitly says 'call this first' or addresses alternatives, and gives no guidance on what to do if the query is ambiguous or returns multiple matches.

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