company_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'free', which is somewhat useful, but doesn't disclose data freshness, coverage limitations, whether the info is based on live data or cached, or what happens with unknown/unlisted companies. For a data-lookup tool with no annotation coverage, more context is needed.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose and what the tool returns. There's no waste or redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool with one parameter.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It tells the agent what data comes back (industry, size, description) but doesn't address edge cases like unavailable companies or whether results vary by market. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but could be enriched with error-handling or coverage notes.

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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory given the tool name. The description implies that 'name' refers to a company name but doesn't explicitly state it, nor does it clarify format expectations (e.g., full legal name vs. common name, case sensitivity). For a single scalar parameter, the baseline is modest and the description adds minimal but acceptable 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 (get) and resource (company overview) with the scope of what it returns: industry, size, and description. It's specific enough to convey the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like enriched_search or competitive_analysis.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention whether this should be used as a first step before competitive_analysis or financial_report, nor does it explain when a more detailed tool would be preferable. Sibling tools like market_trend or competitive_analysis have overlapping domains but no differentiation is given.

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