edgar_screen

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

The description states 'instant results, no API calls', which gives insight into performance and dependencies. It also says filters can be combined. Since no annotations exist, the description takes on the burden, and these details help the agent understand behavior. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or what happens if no matches are found.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose sentence, then a note about instant results, followed by five bullet-point examples. Every sentence is informative and earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality well. It explains the data source (SEC reference) and shows parameter combinations. However, it could mention the structure of returned results or any limitations, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

All parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, but the description adds value by providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., sic=2834, industry='software', exchange='NYSE'). It also explains that 'industry' searches SIC descriptions, which is not in the schema. This enhances 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 it is used to 'discover or screen companies by industry, exchange, or state', and specifies that it returns matching companies from SEC reference data. The examples further reinforce the purpose without ambiguity, and it differentiates from siblings like edgar_search, edgar_company, etc., by focusing on screening rather than searching filings or company details.

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 to discover or screen companies' and provides context on when to use it. It includes examples of filtering by industry, SIC, exchange, and state, and notes that filters can be combined. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools for related tasks, missing some guidance.

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