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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data content and an internal source, displayCompany, but reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, data freshness, or failure behavior. It does not contradict anything, but it adds little beyond the output content.

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 one compact sentence with a colon-led list of profile attributes. It is front-loaded with the core concept and contains no filler or repetitive phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the basic invocation context is understandable. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is somewhat under-specified and relies on the agent to infer conventions and sibling differentiation.

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 schema has one required symbol parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the symbol format, case sensitivity, or how it maps to displayCompany, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's 'symbol' string. The single self-evident parameter prevents a score of 1.

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 identifies the resource as a company profile and enumerates its contents: capital structure, listing year, market lot, 52-week range, dividend status, and EPS. This is more specific than the title and helps distinguish it from quote/price tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name provides the action.

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 listed fields imply when the tool is appropriate, such as when an agent needs listing year, market lot, or dividend status data. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_quote or get_fundamentals, nor does it provide exclusions.

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