get_company_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return envelope structure (success, data, error, tool), the fields within CompanyProfileData, and the possible failure reasons such as delisted symbols or unavailable data sources. Since this is a read-only lookup, the '取得/查詢' verbs and lack of side-effect warnings sufficiently convey behavior, though it stops short of explicitly stating that no data is mutated.

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?

Although the description is somewhat long, it is well-structured into overview, usage examples, Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every part earns its place because there is no output schema and no annotations to rely on; the format makes it easy to scan and parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input format, the expected data fields, the response envelope, and the error conditions. There is no missing information an agent would need to call this tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 coverage is 0%, and the schema only says 'symbol' is a required string. The description compensates fully by defining symbol as '公司股票代碼' with '2330' and '2317' examples and showing exactly how to call the function. This adds meaning the schema alone cannot provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '取得上市公司基本資訊' (get basic information for a listed company), and then enumerates the exact fields returned, such as company name, industry, chairman, established date, capital, and employees. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover income statements, balance sheets, dividends, and other financial-specific data.

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 by explaining that this tool returns company basic profile data and gives concrete usage examples with real Taiwan stock symbols. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for basic company information rather than financial statements or trading operations.

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