company_profile

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states return fields but doesn't disclose potential limitations, authentication needs, or whether the data is real-time or delayed. The description is minimal on behavioral aspects beyond the return list.

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?

Concise two sentences for purpose, a clean list of return fields, clear argument section, and relevant examples. No fluff or redundancy; every element adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It lists return fields and gives usage examples. Could mention if the profile is for the latest available data, but not a major gap.

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 has one parameter 'symbol' with no description. The description adds semantic meaning by specifying 'Stock ticker (e.g., RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL, MSFT)', including examples of both Indian and US tickers. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Get company overview and profile information' and lists specific return fields (name, sector, industry, etc.). Examples like company_profile('RELIANCE') show typical usage. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on profile data rather than financial statements or market data.

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?

Provides examples but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like stock_quote, key_ratios, or other sibling tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are given.

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