sec_company_intelligence

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: enrichment is best-effort with degraded sources listed without failing the core response, and data is credential-free and public. This adds transparency beyond the schema, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination.

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 efficiently structured, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing optional enrichment. It is concise at 5 sentences, with no redundant phrases. Could be slightly tighter but effectively communicates complex information.

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?

The description lists what is included in the 360 overview (profile, financial snapshot, filings, events) but does not describe the output structure or format. Given the complexity and no output schema, more detail on the response shape would improve completeness.

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% but the description adds significant context: explains enrich as a comma list, clarifies keying for market/news (ticker) and hiring (ATS + slug), and delineates Workday-specific parameters. This meaningfully supplements the schema descriptions.

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 provides a 'Company 360 overview from SEC data' aggregating profile, financial snapshot, filings, and events into one call. It specifies input methods (cik or ticker) and distinguishes from sibling tools like sec_filing or sec_financials by offering a consolidated view.

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 explains how to identify the company (cik or ticker) and details the enrichment options, including source-specific requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sec_company_submissions or sec_financials, nor does it provide conditions for not using it.

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