sec_company_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns specific company details and a recent filings list, and it emphasizes that the lookup is by CIK number only. It does not mention edge cases like unknown CIKs or response format limitations, but for a read-only lookup tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a bulleted list of useful examples, and a closing pointer to the sibling tool. Every element serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and read-only annotation, the description is thoroughly complete. It states the input, the output fields, provides common examples, and explains how to find the CIK if needed. Given the simple complexity and that no output schema exists, this description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% because the cik parameter has a detailed description including format and examples. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by providing a curated list of common CIK numbers (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) and reiterating that leading zeros are optional, which helps the agent quickly recognize valid inputs without needing to consult external 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up a company on SEC EDGAR by CIK number.' It specifies the verb, resource, and lookup method, and lists the returned fields (company name, tickers, SIC code, state, recent filings). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sec_filing_search by directing users to that tool for name-based searches.

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 tells users when to use this tool (when you have a CIK) and when to use an alternative: 'To find CIK: search by company name using sec_filing_search.' This provides clear guidance and prevents misuse.

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