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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: filing counts only include filings whose section text was extracted, with a pointer to list_filings for the full history. It also enumerates the return contents, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with trigger phrasings and return contents, then alternatives, then next calls. Well-structured and every sentence carries routing or coverage information, though the multi-paragraph layout is on the longer side for a two-parameter tool.

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 compensates by enumerating the return payload and its caveat about extracted-text coverage. Usage, alternatives, and next steps are all present, so an agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the CIK-preference note for delisted companies. The description only restates that it accepts a ticker, name, or CIK, adding no format or matching nuance beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (browse/retrieve) and resource (company) with the exact scope: identity, filings with extracted text, signals, indexed date range, and next calls. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company_overview and search_companies because it names what it returns that they do not.

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?

Opens with the user phrasings that trigger it ('what filings do you have for X?') and explicitly routes other intents: search_companies for picking among name candidates, screen_companies/screen_filing_signals for screening, search_sec_filings for themes. When-to-use and alternatives are both stated, not inferred.

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