Get Company Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the returned fields and accepted identifier types, but it does not disclose behaviors like error handling for invalid identifiers or response format details. With annotations covering the core safety aspects, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, immediately states the tool's purpose, and provides a compact list of returned fields. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and what identifier formats it accepts. It could mention error behavior, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is sufficiently 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?

The schema already describes the identifier parameter fully, noting that it can be a ticker, CIK, CUSIP, or ISIN, with 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats this information without adding additional semantic meaning, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'detailed company profile' with an explicit list of fields (description, CEO, employees, sector, industry, exchange, country). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company_news or get_income_statement by focusing on company attributes, and it specifies accepted identifier types (ticker, CIK, CUSIP, ISIN).

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 that this tool is for obtaining a company profile, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_ticker_by_identifier or get_company_news. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the usage context indirectly inferred.

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