get_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (overview, ratios, analysis) and scope (NSE-listed), but lacks information on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with a single clear sentence followed by an arguments list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, scope, and parameter semantics well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling not mentioned), but it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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, so the description compensates fully. It provides clear examples for 'symbol' (TCS, INFY) and specifies default and options for 'mode' (consolidated/standalone). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves a full company snapshot with specific content (overview, ratios, analysis, financial tabs) for NSE-listed Indian companies. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_raw or get_company_tab by focusing on a comprehensive view.

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 explains when to use the tool (for a full snapshot) and highlights the symbol and mode parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., for raw data or specific tabs). Usage is implied but not fully directed.

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