company_profile

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

The annotation already marks the tool as readOnly. The description adds that the tool searches multiple external sources, which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotation. However, it does not describe the return format, potential errors, or any pagination/limitations, so it provides only partial transparency.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function and sources without any fluff, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 complexity (one nested context object with multiple fields) and lack of an output schema, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. It does not explain how to construct the input or what to expect in response, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 tool description provides zero explanation of the input parameters (e.g., company, country, listed, sector, companyDomain). The schema itself has some inline descriptions for certain fields, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage (0%). An agent would have no guidance on how to map the purpose to the required context parameters.

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: retrieving registry-grade company profile facts (CIN, incorporation date, registered office) and identifies the specific data sources (MCA/Tofler/Zauba/OpenCorporates and the company's own site). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like financials or news.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company_overview or search_company. It implies a use case for registry facts but lacks direct comparison or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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