ai_analyze_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attributable' and 'AI-ready', which hint at output characteristics, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether prior indexing is required, any rate limits, or potential failures when filings are not indexed.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's core purpose. However, it lacks any structural breakdown (e.g., separate sections for usage, parameters, or caveats), which would improve scannability without much added length.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the single-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke it reliably. The output schema exists, but it does not cover usage context, prerequisites, or behavior, making the overall description incomplete.

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 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters, and the description does not mention any of them. It fails to explain what 'cik', 'filing_query', or 'contact_email' mean or how they influence the tool's behavior, leaving the agent without essential parameter guidance.

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 generates an 'attributable AI-ready research brief' from financials and indexed filings, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the tool's unique output form (AI-ready, attributable) from sibling tools that simply retrieve data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool is for producing a research brief from financials and indexed filings, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_company or get_company_financials. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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