company_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves details but doesn't specify what kind of details (e.g., financial data, contact info), whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, concise sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, the format of the response, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured company data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('code' and 'include_funds'). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add extra value.

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 verb ('getirir' - retrieves/fetches) and resource ('Portföy yönetim şirketi detaylarını' - portfolio management company details), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_companies' which might list companies without details, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes this tool from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_companies' for details versus listing, or when to use it in relation to other tools like 'analyze_fund' or 'compare_funds'. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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