get_company_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so this bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: default Markdown output, JSON opt-in, and the failure mode (short error message on unknown ticker or upstream error). It stops short of describing payload size or partial-data behavior, but the gaps are minor.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then routing guidance, then output/error behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema and rich annotations, everything an agent needs is present: payload contents, sibling routing, output format, and error behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Returns Markdown by default, or JSON when response_format=json' largely restates the schema's default and enum, and it adds nothing about ticker validation or accepted symbol formats. 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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Detailed company profile for one stock') and then enumerates the exact payload: business summary, sector/industry, executives, HQ, and valuation stats. That enumeration lets an agent tell it apart from get_financial_statements and get_stock_quote without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit use cases ('what does X do', company background, business overview) and names two alternatives with the condition selecting each: get_financial_statements for statement-level numbers, get_stock_quote for just the live price. Nothing is left to inference.

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