sec_concept_across_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the period semantics (duration vs. instantaneous) and unit conventions, which are not apparent from the schema alone. It does not contradict 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 moderately long but well-organized with clear headings for PERIOD FORMAT and UNITS. It front-loads the core purpose and then delivers essential usage details. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: period formatting rules, unit options, and common use cases. It does not describe return structure or pagination, but the schema covers limit and order. Given the complexity of XBRL concepts, this is adequately complete.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds practical meaning with concrete examples for period formats and units, clarifying the distinction between flow and point-in-time concepts. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and helps the agent construct valid requests.

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 compares a single XBRL concept across all reporting companies for one period, naming the SEC frames API. It positions itself as the most powerful cross-company tool and gives concrete examples (revenue, net income, assets), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like sec_company_concept or sec_company_financials.

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 provides explicit guidance on period formats (CY2023, CY2023Q1, CY2023Q4I) with usage notes for flow vs. instantaneous concepts, and specifies units. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the cross-company vs. single-company distinction is implied. The guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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