get_company_info

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. However, it only describes the output content without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably accesses external data.

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 front-loads the purpose (Company metadata for a US public company) and lists key fields efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the returned fields. However, lacking annotations, it would benefit from additional behavioral context (e.g., data source freshness, read-only hint) to be fully complete.

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 has 100% coverage (ticker parameter described), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not elaborate on the ticker parameter beyond what the schema already states, which is acceptable given 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves company metadata for a US public company, listing specific fields (legal name, SIC/industry, exchange, fiscal year end, S&P 500 membership, link to EDGAR). It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (company info), and the listed fields distinguish it from sibling tools like financial statements.

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 for retrieving company metadata but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Without such context, an agent might not know when this is the appropriate choice.

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