sec_company_financials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by specifying the data source (10-K/10-Q) and listing common XBRL concepts, helping the agent understand what to expect. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core function. The separate notes on CIK and common concepts are organized logically and avoid redundancy. Slightly verbose with the concept list, but each part earns its place.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and usage, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., periods, units, formatting). Since there's no output schema, this gap could hinder an agent from correctly interpreting results. It also doesn't mention potential edge cases like missing data for a CIK.

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 both parameters are documented. The description enhances this by providing a concrete CIK example and listing common metric values, and by noting that omitting metric returns a summary. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves financial data from SEC XBRL filings for a company, listing example metrics (revenue, net income, assets) and mentioning 10-K/10-Q sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it's for a specific company via CIK, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sec_company_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 requires a CIK and directs users to sec_company_search for lookups, establishing a clear workflow. It also explains the optional metric parameter and the summary behavior, giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer this over sec_company_concept, leaving some ambiguity.

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