sec_edgar_get_concept_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: aliases merge US-GAAP tags to avoid silent history truncation. It also explains that if nothing is found, the error message guides the user. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other safety aspects, hence a 4.

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 organized into three short paragraphs, each with a clear purpose: what it does, when to use it, and how aliases work. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose with the alias list and explanation; still, it remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers all essential context: purpose, usage context, alias details, and error handling. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema is present. The guidance on error recovery is especially helpful, making the description complete for an agent.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description greatly enhances the concept parameter by listing all valid aliases, explaining the merging behavior, and noting that raw US-GAAP tags are also accepted. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal description and gives the agent concrete, usable knowledge.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the reported time series for one financial concept' and gives concrete examples (revenue, net income, total assets). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_available_concepts (which lists concepts) and get_company_profile (which returns company info).

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 states 'Use this for trend and ratio analysis,' providing a clear use case. It also instructs that using aliases is the most reliable approach, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_available_concepts for discovering concepts, so it falls short of a full 5.

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