get_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral scope: it returns a single company's profile and only the most recent reported financial summary. It does not overpromise historical or exhaustive financial detail, though it could mention response-size constraints or error handling.

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?

Two sentences carry the full message with no wasted words, front-loading the main purpose and then immediately routing to the relevant sibling. The profile contents are itemized compactly and the alternative tool is named explicitly.

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 simple single-company read tool, the description sets accurate expectations about the returned data even without an output schema. It names the main sibling to avoid confusion, and the schema handles parameter details, though it does not cover every edge case such as invalid codes or omitted fields.

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%, thoroughly documenting both code and fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the returned profile contains, but it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's already-rich details.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full profile of one company') and enumerates the payload contents: identifiers, industry, market segment, headcount, and recent financial summary. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_financials by labeling itself the general 'tell me about this company' tool.

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 clearly states when to use this tool — as the general company-profile tool — and gives a direct alternative with the condition: 'for a multi-year numeric series use get_financials.' This gives an agent a concrete routing decision without inferring from context.

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