get_company_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that data is fetched from an external source (screener.in) and hints at large response sizes via the 'fields' guidance, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or any other behavioral traits that might surprise an agent. This is a minimal but not full disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence provides actionable guidance without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description could do more to explain the return format, but for a simple fetch tool with 3 parameters (1 required) and covered schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states the source and gives parameter guidance, though it could mention the 'consolidated' parameter explicitly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly noting 'Use the fields parameter to request only what you need and reduce response size' and 'Omit fields to get all', which provides practical, behavioral context for the parameter beyond its enum values.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Fetch financial data for a company from screener.in.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_company' which presumably searches for companies, while this tool retrieves specific financial data for a given symbol.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for fetching financial data, implying when to use it (when financial data is needed) versus search_company. It also gives explicit usage guidance on the 'fields' parameter to reduce response size. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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