SEC EDGAR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'Recent' filings and mentions event type classification but does not disclose defaults (e.g., 90-day window from since parameter), error behavior, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate.

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?

Two sentences: the first describes the tool's output and event types, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and usage but omits parameter semantics and return format details. For a tool that returns structured data, the agent lacks guidance on interpreting results.

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 only 25% (only 'since' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level details; it does not clarify what 'cik' or 'ticker' represent or how 'limit' behaves. Despite low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 tool returns 'Recent 8-K material event filings for a company' with classified event types, giving specific examples like 'material_acquisition', 'executive_change'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgar_get_facts or edgar_read_filing.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks "has anything material happened with <company>"', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set covers other needed tools.

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

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

With no annotations, description must fully disclose behavior. It lists returned metadata fields but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or any prerequisites. Adequate but has gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. Could explicitly state return format (e.g., JSON object) but this is minor.

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%, and description adds value by explaining the parameter accepts ticker or CIK and listing the metadata fields returned. This goes beyond the schema's simple string description.

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 clearly states it retrieves company metadata by ticker or CIK, listing specific fields (legal name, SIC industry, exchanges, fiscal year end). It differentiates from siblings (edgar_get_8k, edgar_get_facts, etc.) by focusing on basic company info, not filings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to know who/what a company is, before drilling into filings', providing clear context. However, does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other needs.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the preference for latest-filed data when amendments exist, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not state if the tool is read-only or mention any rate limits or data freshness.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input options and return format. Perfectly concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, description gives a clear picture of the return structure (one row per fiscal period). Covers the CIK/ticker disjunction and the alias system. Completely adequate for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the alias system and listing common aliases, going beyond the schema's brief descriptions. Baseline 3 raised to 4.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves XBRL-structured financial facts for a company, listing specific examples like revenue and EPS. It distinguishes from sibling tools (edgar_get_8k, edgar_get_company, etc.) by focusing on the 'facts' concept.

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 guidance on input format (accepts common aliases or XBRL concepts) and notes that CIK or ticker can be used. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context makes the purpose distinct. Could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., for non-XBRL data).

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

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

Discloses truncation behavior, which is important. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other aspects like error handling, response format, or authentication requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Efficient and clear.

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?

Fairly complete for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, use case, and truncation limitation. Could mention error conditions or optional params, but is sufficient.

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 baseline 3 applies. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just reinforcing accession number usage. No new parameter insights.

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 states it fetches full text HTML of a specific filing by accession number, and mentions usefulness for 10-K/8-K. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edgar_get_8k.

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 a when-to-use context (reading actual content of 10-K/8-K) and a limitation (truncation at ~80K characters, recommends using search first). Does not specify when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states returns recent filings and filtering, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens on no results. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two tight sentences: first defines purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words, all earn their 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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return format. With sibling tools, the context is partially inferred, but for a search tool, the missing structure is a gap. Otherwise covers key filtering details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'provide either ticker OR cik' is already in schema descriptions). No substantial added meaning.

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 verb (search), resource (SEC EDGAR filings), and scope (US-listed company, filtered by ticker/CIK, form type, date range). It is distinct from siblings like edgar_read_filing and edgar_get_8k, which retrieve specific filings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks "what did <company> file" or needs to find a specific filing.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings are available.

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