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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the data source (www.sec.gov EDGAR system), the no-auth requirement, and the exact-match vs. substring behavior. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but for a simple lookup with an output schema this is 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and return value, the second lists the output fields, and the third gives the data source and auth posture. The key scoping detail (CIK required by other tools) is front-loaded. No filler or 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?

For a low-complexity tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essentials: what it does, how inputs are interpreted, return contents, data source, and authentication. The output schema handles return structure, so no gap remains for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (query semantics with examples, limit range/default). The description restates the query modes but does not add meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a precise resource ('SEC Central Index Key (CIK)') and explicitly states the two accepted input forms (ticker exact match, company name substring) and the output (name, ticker, CIK). It distinguishes itself from sibling sec-edgar tools by positioning CIK as the identifier required by all other sec-edgar tools, which clearly differentiates this lookup from filings.list and financials.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?

The description states that the CIK is 'required by all other sec-edgar tools,' which gives clear contextual guidance to run this lookup before other sec-edgar operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a CIK is already known), so it stops short of a full when/when-not articulation.

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