SEC EDGAR XBRL company facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the important behavioral detail of a 'large payload', which warns about performance or cost. This goes beyond annotations to set user expectations.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose, then add constraints (large payload) and key parameter usage. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the return format. However, it effectively conveys scope (all filings) and scale (large payload), which are critical for usage decisions. It is mostly complete but lacks output structure 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description compensates by explaining that identification is done via ticker or CIK, clarifying they are alternative identifiers. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 all standardized XBRL financial facts for a company, including examples like revenue and EPS. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it covers all filings and is a large payload, which differentiates it from more specific SEC tools like sec_company_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 implies usage via the mention of ticker or CIK, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other SEC tools (e.g., sec_company_concept for a specific fact). It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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