sec_company_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what the tool returns (company name, tickers, SIC, state, filings list) and gives concrete CIK examples. It doesn't mention any side effects or limitations, but given the simple read-only nature, this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states purpose and returns, followed by a compact list of common CIKs, then a helpful tip for finding CIK. No redundant sentences; every element 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is complete. It states the input (CIK), the return fields, and provides guidance on obtaining the CIK if missing. No output schema is present, but the description covers the essential return information. No missing elements that an agent would need to call it 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% with a detailed parameter description ('10-digit CIK number, leading zeros optional'). The description adds value by listing common CIK numbers for well-known companies, which aids correct usage and provides concrete examples. While the schema covers the format, the examples are a helpful supplement.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), a resource ('a company on SEC EDGAR'), and the method ('by CIK number'). It also lists the returned fields (company name, tickers, SIC code, state, recent filings). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sec_company_financials (financial data) or sec_filing_search (filing search).

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 states when to use this tool (when you have a CIK) and provides an alternative for when you don't: 'To find CIK: search by company name using sec_filing_search.' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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