get_company_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention any required permissions, whether the operation is purely read-only, or any potential side effects. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that names the resource and lists its key contents. No filler or repeated schema information. Every word adds value.

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 tool with only 1 parameter and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the expected response contents (E/S/G scores, classifications, sector, activity, verification date). It does not specify formatting or pagination, but none is needed for a single-profile get. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions, but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% (companyId is fully described with type, description, and constraint). The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, including the clue that the ID comes from search or listing. This meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company's ESG profile'), and enumerates the contained data (E/S/G scores, classifications, sector, activity, verification date). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_criteria or compare_companies, which target other aspects.

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 implies usage (when you have a company ID and need its ESG profile) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_company or get_company_criteria. The parameter description adds context ('from search or listing') but the tool description itself offers no direct comparison or exclusion.

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