Company profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'Every label on the page is also returned verbatim in raw_fields', which is not in the schema and gives insight into the output structure.

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 opens with a clear, front-loaded summary sentence, followed by a detailed field list and the raw_fields note. It is informative without redundant fluff, though the field enumeration is slightly lengthy.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the scope (PSE-listed), returns a comprehensive field list, and highlights the raw_fields behavior. No critical usage context is missing.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbol'. The description compensates partially by mentioning 'PSE-listed company', implying symbol refers to a PSE ticker, but it gives no format, examples, or validation guidance, leaving some ambiguity.

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's function: 'Get a PSE-listed company's profile' and enumerates the specific contents (sector, incorporation, auditor, contacts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote and get_financial_highlights, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Clear context: the tool is for retrieving a company profile for PSE-listed stocks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the clarity of purpose make the appropriate usage obvious.

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