datasets_sec_companies_item

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the return data (filing-history, financials, insider activity) and the 404 behavior for missing CIK. It does not mention destructive actions, but the tool is clearly read-only. 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, including the dataset id and error case. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the CIK parameter with format examples. The description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a company from the SEC companies dataset by CIK'. It specifies the return content (filing-history, financials, insider activity). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like datasets_sec_companies_search or datasets_sec_companies_financials, the purpose is well-defined.

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 when a specific CIK is known and a comprehensive summary is needed. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., for just insider activity, use datasets_sec_companies_insider). No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions.

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