get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses default behavior ('Default includes labor_context + lending_context') and ticker resolution rules ('FB resolves to META'), but does not explicitly state read-only operation or behavior when data is missing.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, defaults, and parameter semantics. It's organized with a clear 'Args:' marker, and is not bloated despite its length.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain returns. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and defaults thoroughly enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits potential error cases or data availability caveats.

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 schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description's detailed ticker formats ('10-digit CIK ("0000320193"), stripped CIK ("320193"), or historical ticker') and include composition are essential and well-documented.

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 the tool fetches a company profile with optional sub-resources ('Get company profile plus any combination of sub-resources in one call'). It lists specific sub-resources, differentiating it from sibling single-resource tools like get_financials or get_ratios.

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?

It explains when to use (to compose multiple sub-resources) and gives an example ('Pass include=... to compose exactly what you need'), but does not explicitly contrast with calling individual endpoints or state when not to use it.

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