codal_company

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

The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content details about what the profile includes, but it does not disclose other behavior such as response format, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and then lists the key fields returned. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary preamble.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only profile lookup, the description provides enough context about the returned fields, and the schema fully documents the input. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the field list, though a note about resolving unknown symbols via search_symbol would make it more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema as accepting a Persian symbol or insCode. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 that this returns an issuer profile from Codal and lists the fields included: CEO, ISIC, address, and activity description. It is specific about the resource and contents, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as codal_filings or symbol_overview.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent can infer that it retrieves company profile data, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like search_symbol for resolving symbols or codal_filings for filings.

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