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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns 'up to 20 most recent values' and specifies included fields (period dates, form type, fiscal year). This extends beyond annotations by revealing result limitations and structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise at 28 words across two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with key details (result limit, fields, value proposition). Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 required) and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what data is returned and that results are limited to 20 values. It does not delve into pagination or potential API errors, but annotations cover safety. The lack of a return format description is mitigated by the output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for cik, tag, and taxonomy parameters. The description adds value by listing example tags (Revenues, NetIncomeLoss) and positioning the tool as covering 'any XBRL financial concept,' but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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's purpose: providing a complete history of any XBRL financial concept for a company. It specifies the verb 'complete history,' the resource 'XBRL financial concept,' and scope 'across all SEC filings.' The title 'SEC Company Financial History' reinforces this. It also distinguishes from siblings by positioning as a 'free alternative to Bloomberg' and focusing on historical financial concept values, which differentiates it from other finance.edgar tools like company_facts or xbrl_frames.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical XBRL financial data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'free alternative to Bloomberg' but does not compare with sibling tools such as finance.edgar.company_facts or finance.edgar.xbrl_frames. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer use cases without clear boundaries.

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