edgar_fund

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists all actions with examples, making the tool's behavior clear. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but the read-only nature is inferred from the actions.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses a list of action types and examples, making it scannable. However, some minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 adequately covers the available actions and example usage. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination (limit parameter), and error cases. Given no output schema, more context on response 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples for each action and parameter combination, demonstrating usage beyond the schema's simple 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 is for mutual fund, ETF, BDC, and money market fund analysis, with specific actions listed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edgar_company and edgar_filing by focusing solely on fund-related data.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for ... fund analysis,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the sibling list implies differentiation.

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