company_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it searches multiple external sources and the company's own site, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes, data availability limitations, or that results may be incomplete—gaps that are more relevant given the openWorldHint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and sources. No filler or repetition—every word earns its place.

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 tool with a nested required parameter (company) and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't tell the agent what to supply for the context object, how optional fields like country or listed affect results, or what the return looks like (no output schema). An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of the parameters. The nested context object includes company (required), date, listed, sector, country, and companyDomain, but the description doesn't mention any of them, how they influence the search, or what the required company field means. The schema's own descriptions are sparse, leaving the agent with little guidance.

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 action (retrieves) and resource (registry-grade company profile facts) with specific data points (CIN, incorporation date, registered office). It also names the data sources (MCA/Tofler/Zauba/OpenCorporates and company site), which helps distinguish it from siblings like company_overview or search_company, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't state that this is for registry facts specifically, nor does it mention exclusions like 'use financial_statements for financials'. The context of 'registry-grade' implies a purpose, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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