get_insider_profile

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real context beyond them: what the tool deliberately does NOT return, that no transaction data is included, and a free-plan note. It stops short of describing pagination or failure modes for an unknown CIK, so it is not quite a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: identity-first, then the exclusion and sibling routing, then the CIK-resolution prerequisite and plan note. Front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (name, titles, role flags, no transactions). Combined with the sibling routing and prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% for the single cik parameter, and the description largely restates the same CIK/leading-zeros/resolve-first guidance already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Identity card for one insider by CIK') and enumerates the returned fields (name, titles, role flags). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_insider_transactions and get_insider_career_summary, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not ('Returns NO transactions') and routes to two named alternatives depending on intent (raw rows vs aggregated rollup). It also covers the prerequisite: resolve a name to a CIK via search/search_insiders first.

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