company_profile

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by revealing the tool aggregates data from MCA/Tofler/Zauba/OpenCorporates and the company's own site, and notes the 'registry-grade' nature of the facts. This gives the agent a sense of data provenance and expected trustworthiness, though it does not cover failure modes or rate limits.

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?

One sentence of ~20 words, front-loaded with the main action and deliverables. Every word contributes; no 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?

The description supplies key return facts and sources, and the schema covers the input object, but without an output schema the description does not fully specify the return structure or behavior for missing companies. It is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves some operational gaps.

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 tool's description does not explain how to fill the 'context' object; the schema has some nested property descriptions (date, sector, companyDomain) but the top-level parameter lacks documentation. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description offers no compensation for parameter semantics.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('company profile facts'), and the exact data points (CIN, incorporation date, registered office), plus named sources. This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like company_overview or search_company.

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?

Although the description implies a use case (obtaining registry-grade facts), it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling tools (e.g., company_overview) or mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit.

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