get_company_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (legal name, tickers, links to 10-K/10-Q, etc.), but it does not explicitly confirm that it is a read-only operation or mention any potential errors or limitations. Nonetheless, the description is fairly transparent.

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 concise at three sentences: the first defines the tool, the second provides usage guidance, and the third specifies input. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the expected return fields (legal name, tickers, exchange, etc.) and the input type. For a simple profile retrieval tool, this is complete and aligned with the context signals.

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 input schema has no description for the single 'query' parameter, but the description clarifies that it accepts a 'ticker or name,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as an 'identity card' for a company, listing specific data points (legal name, tickers, exchange, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating it is for orientation before pulling numbers.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('to orient a screen before pulling numbers') and what input it accepts ('ticker or name'), effectively differentiating it from the financial data tools listed as siblings.

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