sec_edgar_get_company_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the core lookup behavior and adds usage ordering, but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid ticker), rate limits, or explicitly confirm it is read-only. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple lookup tool.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence front-loads the action and outputs, and the second sentence gives a crucial usage guideline. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 that this tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and sibling tools that depend on its output, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without needing further details.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for 'ticker' ('Stock ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ticker's role but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'resolves' and clearly states the resource ('ticker symbol' to 'company's SEC identity'), listing concrete outputs such as CIK and registrant name. It also differentiates from sibling tools by positioning this as the entry point tool, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 'Usually the first tool to call, since the other tools key off the company.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and explains why it should be called before the sibling tools, which is excellent contextual direction.

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