sec_company_concept

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about returning the full reported history and being faster/smaller, but does not describe output shape, pagination, or data limits. This is adequate but not richer than expected.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The scoping and performance guidance appears immediately, followed by a compact list of common concepts. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 simple, well-annotated read-only tool, the description covers purpose, scope, alternative routing, example concepts, and parameter hints. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description itself clearly frames what the tool returns: the full reported history time series.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description, including example values for cik and concept. The description adds a list of common concept values which is helpful, but the schema already carries most of the semantic weight.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full reported history of a single XBRL financial concept for one company.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling sec_company_financials and sec_concept_across_companies by narrowing scope to one company and one concept.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative, sec_company_financials, and gives the exact condition for choosing this tool: 'when you only need one metric's time series.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction with no ambiguity.

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