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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned facets (units, periods, date range, restated-period counts), which is genuinely useful context, but does not cover pagination semantics (limit/offset) or ordering.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the resource first and then enumerates the returned facets efficiently.

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 need not explain return values, and it correctly stays at a high level while implying the facets available. The main missing piece is pagination/ordering behavior and when to choose this tool over siblings, but the core contract is complete.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema, including the limit/offset and search semantics. The description mentions units/periods/restated counts, which describe output rather than adding parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (List) and resource (XBRL concepts), and adds useful scope detail ('a company reports', 'plain names it supports'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_company or cross_section, but the resource is specific enough to be selectable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The description implies this is a discovery/inspection call scoped to one company, but it never says when to prefer list_concepts over cross_section or history, nor any prerequisites around the 'company' value being required.

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