xbrl_edgar_company_info

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (JSON with specific fields) and input options (CIK or ticker), without contradicting annotations. One could note that auth or rate limits are not mentioned, but the safety profile is 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 short, structured with clear sections (Returns, Args, Returns), and every sentence adds value. No superfluous words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: input options, return fields. It could mention reliance on SEC EDGAR, but overall it adequately completes the understanding for an agent or user.

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?

The description mentions 'CIK or ticker' as input, which maps to the two schema properties. Although the schema also provides descriptions ('SEC CIK number', 'Stock ticker symbol'), the description clarifies that either can be used. With schema coverage reported as 0%, the description partially compensates but lacks detail on formats or mutual exclusivity.

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 retrieves a comprehensive company profile from SEC EDGAR, listing specific return fields (name, CIK, SIC code, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrl_company_facts (which gets facts) and xbrl_edgar_search (broader search).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While the listed return fields imply usage for basic company info, no when-not or alternative guidance is provided, which is less helpful given the many sibling tools.

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