Get SEC company info

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful field-level details—such as 'former names' and 'latest annual/quarterly reports'—that clarify the scope of the operation without contradicting the 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, followed by a compact colon-delimited list of returned data. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides all needed information: what the profile contains, how to invoke it via schema, and the read-only safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented (company examples and formats, response_format enum and default). The description introduces no additional parameter semantics beyond listing result fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a company's SEC profile'), then enumerates concrete fields (legal name, CIK, SIC, tickers/exchanges, filer category, latest reports). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgar_list_filings or edgar_get_financial_statement, which focus on filings or statements rather than profile data.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the description conveys 'use this when you need a company's SEC profile,' but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided, so an agent must infer the right situation from the purpose alone.

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