edgar_trends

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'returns XBRL-sourced time series with growth rates', implying a read-only retrieval operation. While it doesn't specify side effects, authentication, or rate limits, the read-only nature is sufficiently clear.

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 front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then returns details, followed by relevant examples. Every sentence is useful with no redundancy.

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 output as 'time series with growth rates'. Combined with the schema (which documents all parameters including defaults), the tool is fully understandable. Examples further clarify usage patterns.

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 value by showing parameter combinations through examples (e.g., 'identifier="AAPL", concepts=["revenue"]'), enhancing understanding beyond 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 'financial trend analysis over time' and specifies 'returns XBRL-sourced time series with growth rates', distinguishing it from siblings like edgar_company or edgar_filing which focus on other aspects.

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 financial trend analysis over time' and provides concrete examples covering different use cases (single metric, multi-metric, quarterly), giving clear guidance on when to use.

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