Get one XBRL concept's history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description appropriately adds value beyond them: annual/quarterly durations, YTD-derived quarters, and 'all' returning every distinct reported period. It does not describe the return payload, but read-only annotations lower the burden; what the description adds is genuinely useful behavioral nuance.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and examples; the second packs the period-behavior nuance and the search-first caution. Every clause 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 tool with only two required parameters, 100% schema coverage, read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. It clearly explains concept choice and period behavior; explicit edge cases like empty results are not addressed, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all six parameters. The description adds value by giving realistic concept examples and warning that a likely-looking concept like us-gaap:NumberOfEmployees is rarely tagged, which helps agents choose concept values. It does not add extra detail for unit/max_points/response_format, but the schema covers those clearly.

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 ('Get'), resource ('reported history of any XBRL concept'), target ('for a company'), and concrete examples. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like edgar_get_financial_statement or edgar_get_key_metrics by focusing on the history of a single concept, and the 'search first' hint differentiates it from edgar_search_concepts.

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 gives concrete usage context: annual/quarterly/all period behavior and points the agent to search first for rarely tagged concepts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool versus a financial statement tool, but the period semantics and search-first warning provide clear practical guidance.

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