edgar_company

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as returning data (profile, financials, etc.) and how to control inclusion, implying a read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes concise examples. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

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 adequately explains the returned data types and customization. It covers all key parameters and usage scenarios, though it omits error handling or limits.

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% with descriptions. The description adds value through examples (e.g., 'identifier="AAPL"', 'include=["financials"]') and explains default behavior, improving parameter understanding beyond the 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 is the starting point for company-level questions, returning profile, financials, filings, and ownership. It distinguishes itself from siblings as a comprehensive entry point, but does not explicitly contrast with each sibling.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this as the starting point for any company-level question,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternative tools for specific cases.

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