Search a company's XBRL concepts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating exactly what is returned (concept name, label, units, latest value) and what is intentionally omitted (full history) and where to get it. 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?

Two sentences get straight to the point, with front-loaded action and result. The examples are compact and the pointer to edgar_get_concept is valuable without adding noise.

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 keyword search tool, the description covers what it searches, what it returns, and what to use next. There is no output schema, so the return-field summary is sufficient. It could additionally mention response_format or edge cases, but the schema already documents those.

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%, so parameters like query, company, limit, and response_format are already fully documented there. The description reinforces the meaning of query with examples but does not need to add more parameter detail.

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 (Find), a specific resource (XBRL concepts/tags), and the matching strategy (keyword in tag name or label). It includes concrete examples and points to edgar_get_concept for full history, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 intended use is clear: search for concepts by keyword and then use edgar_get_concept if full history is needed. It explicitly names an alternative for follow-up. It does not spell out when to prefer edgar_full_text_search or edgar_search_companies, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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