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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. Description adds that it returns 'last 5 reporting periods per metric with form type and date', which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information: what it does, what metrics, how many periods, and data source.

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?

Given a single required parameter, availability of output schema, and clear description of output structure (metrics, periods, form type, date), the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Parameter schema has 100% coverage with description 'SEC CIK number (e.g. '320193' for Apple)'. Description adds example but no further semantic meaning. According to rubric, high schema coverage gives baseline 3, which 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?

Description clearly specifies verb (returns), resource (XBRL financial facts), and target (US public company). Lists specific metrics (revenue, net income, assets, liabilities, equity, EPS, cash, operating income) and differentiates from sibling tools like finance.edgar.filings and finance.edgar.company_search by focusing on structured XBRL data.

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?

Description implies usage context for obtaining financial metrics from 10-K/10-Q filings, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like finance.edgar.xbrl_concept or finance.edgar.xbrl_frames. Still, the scope is clear and aligned with typical agent needs.

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