get_company_meta

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

The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but the tool's simplicity limits the need for extensive disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two short sections—with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with a clear parameter explanation.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it could mention that multiple tickers yield multiple results or hint at the output structure. Still, it covers the essential use case adequately.

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 enriches the schema's bare string type by explaining the expected format (comma-separated tickers) and providing examples (AAPL,MSFT,GOOGL). This adds meaning beyond what the schema alone offers, compensating 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'company metadata', specifying the fields sector, industry, and location. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_metadata by focusing on company-level attributes, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 like get_stock_metadata or get_fundamentals_definitions. There are no context cues for prerequisites or exclusions.

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