sec_edgar_list_available_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals ordering by data point count, case-insensitive substring search on tag and label, and that results are limited to what the company actually reports. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool this is strong behavioral 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?

Four dense, purposeful sentences, each adding new information: purpose, usage guidance, search behavior, and ordering. No fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are already documented), the description covers purpose, usage, search, and ordering. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, with no obvious gaps.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds a useful detail about search being case-insensitive, but otherwise relies on the schema's parameter descriptions, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Lists the US-GAAP tags a company actually reports to the SEC.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like sec_edgar_list_filings and sec_edgar_get_concept_series by focusing on available concepts.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Call this when sec_edgar_get_concept_series cannot find a concept.' It also explains how the output integrates with that sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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