get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the asset-type-dependent behavior (stocks vs. ETFs/mutual funds) and that governance fields may be standardized placeholders. It does not cover error behavior, data freshness, or response format, but the disclosed variability is valuable.

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 well-structured with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then elaborate on the unified nature. It is concise without being under-specified, earning a high score, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what fields to expect but remains somewhat vague ('governance fields,' 'fund-specific attributes where applicable'). It does not give examples or detailed return structure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 only parameter, 'symbol', is fully described in the input schema as 'Asset identifier (ticker symbol).' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not go beyond the schema, giving the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool returns a profile and descriptive metadata for an asset, with specific content categories. It distinguishes itself as a 'unified profile snapshot' that combines company identity, fund profile, and governance placeholders, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_summary or get_metrics.

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 implies usage for obtaining a general profile but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer its role from the unified snapshot phrasing.

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