Get Company Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds a critical auth requirement (FINNHUB_API_KEY environment variable). It also communicates the output structure (profile, market metrics, peer companies) without contradicting annotations.

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 focused sentences: purpose, return fields, and context/auth. Every sentence carries unique information, no redundancy or 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 read tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose, output, and auth requirements. It clearly explains what data to expect and where it fits among sibling tools.

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 fully documents the single 'symbol' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Get a comprehensive company overview' and enumerates specific data points (market cap, PE ratio, beta, 52-week range, EPS, dividend yield, peer tickers). It also distinguishes itself as the 'market overlay' versus SEC fundamental data, setting it apart from sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear context by positioning the tool as the 'market overlay' complementing SEC fundamental data, implying it should be used for market metrics rather than filings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools 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.