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.