getCIKList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond labeling it a 'comprehensive database'. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 contains two sentences: one stating the purpose and one touting importance. It is fairly concise, but the second sentence is somewhat marketing-heavy and could be omitted or condensed without loss of functional information.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose. However, it does not mention output format, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'searchCIK'. This leaves some gaps but is minimally adequate.

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%, so the parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 provides CIK numbers for SEC-registered entities. The verb 'access' is vague, but the context of a database lookup is clear. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'searchCIK', which likely serves a similar purpose with filtering.

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 mentions it is 'essential' for those needing CIK numbers but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchCIK'. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.

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