xbrl_company_facts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. The description adds that it doesn't require a prior filing load and returns a summary, which is consistent and adds context.

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?

Three concise paragraphs: purpose, return summary, and args/returns documentation. Front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Description adequately explains purpose and behavior. However, given many siblings, a brief note on when to use this vs. other XBRL tools would increase 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 descriptions cover parameters well (cik, concept_filter, limit). The description adds minimal parameter info beyond schema, but does not compensate for the 0% coverage in the schema commentary (though schema actually has descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets all XBRL facts for a company from SEC EDGAR, returns a summary of concepts across all filings, and does not require loading a filing first. This distinguishes it from siblings like xbrl_extract_facts or xbrl_edgar_bulk_facts.

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 it does not require loading a filing first, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it. Implicitly it's for broad overview; more explicit guidance would improve.

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