get_profile

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 data points returned. However, it does not mention operational behaviors like read-only safety, data freshness, potential errors, or any rate limits, so the transparency is only partial.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or 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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input and the content of the output. It does not describe response structure or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool keep this from being a significant 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?

The only parameter, symbol, is already described in the schema as 'Ticker, e.g. NVDA' with 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 description names a specific verb and resource ('Get company profile') and enumerates the exact contents: business summary, sector, industry, employees, address, contact info. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_financials.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_symbol, get_quote, or get_financials. The description implies the use case from the tool's name, but it never explicitly states selection criteria or exclusions.

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