xbrl_search_sec_concept

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context: it uses the SEC companyconcept API and returns JSON with historical values, periods, and units. No contradictions are present.

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 very concise, at only about 5 sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: specifying the API, what it returns, and the independence from loading a filing.

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 tool has an output schema (mentioned in context), and the description explains the return value as 'JSON with historical values, periods, and units,' which is sufficient. For a moderate-complexity search tool with rich annotations, this description provides complete context for usage without unnecessary detail.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not repeat parameter definitions. The description lists the three required fields (CIK, concept name, taxonomy) in the Args section but lacks detailed syntax, examples, or constraints like the default taxonomy value or format rules. Given the low coverage, the description provides minimal compensation.

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 searches SEC EDGAR for a specific XBRL concept across all filings, returning historical values like Assets or Revenue. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like xbrl_concept_details or xbrl_company_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 explicitly says 'Does NOT require loading a filing first,' providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the 44 siblings, so it misses some guidance.

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