get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the return fields (company name, CEO, address, etc.) and implies no side effects. It is transparent enough for a read-only lookup, though more details on error handling or rate limits could enhance it.

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 concise, using only a few sentences to state purpose, input, and output. It is well-structured with separate sections for parameters and returns, maximizing clarity without unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what input is needed, and what returns to expect. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type without description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying it's an 8-digit DART code with an example, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves company overview information using a DART unique number. It specifies the input (corp_code) and distinguishes from siblings by referencing how to obtain the code from search_disclosures or search_corp_code.

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 explains that the corp_code comes from specific sibling tools, indicating a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, it provides sufficient context for proper usage.

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