Company profile

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

The description discloses important behavioral detail: KAP-absent sections are returned as null with a `not_available` note and are 'never invented.' It also mentions the optional Yahoo profile/holders addition. This goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, with no contradiction.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and its core contents, while the second covers the optional enrichment. The dense list is justified.

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?

With a rich output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations declaring read-only/idempotent behavior, the description completes the picture by explaining null/missing-data semantics and provenance. The need to provide either ticker or company_id is inferable from the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the 'Yahoo profile and holders' phrase mirrors include_market_profile, and nothing is missing.

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 concrete resource ('Company profile from KAP') and enumerates its contents: name, tickers, capital, ISINs, shareholders, board, etc. This is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_companies or get_quote.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The phrase 'Company profile from KAP' implies the use case, and the schema adds that company_id comes from search_companies, but the description itself leaves sibling selection to inference.

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