company_profile

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 lists the returned fields and shows read-only intent via 'Get', but lacks explicit statements about data source, delay, or any limitations. This is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 well-organized into Returns, Args, and Examples sections, making it easy to scan. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema, but the examples add value. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and return fields sufficiently. It could mention data source or coverage limitations, but these are not critical for a simple overview tool.

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 only parameter 'symbol' is thoroughly explained with a clear definition and multiple examples including both Indian (RELIANCE, TCS) and US (AAPL, MSFT) tickers. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 'Get company overview and profile information' and enumerates specific return fields (name, sector, industry, market cap, etc.). This distinguishes it from related tools like stock_quote or income_statement. Examples reinforce the intended use cases.

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 examples provide clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., 'What does Reliance Industries do?', 'Tesla company overview'), implying use for fundamental company overview queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives for pricing or financial statements.

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