sec_edgar_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no API key is required, but says nothing about what "recent filings" means (count, timeframe), pagination, or return format for a read-only lookup.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently packs resource, key, and access note, though the parenthetical is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return shape, filing recency/volume, and result limits, leaving non-trivial gaps for an agent to work around.

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% and only one parameter exists, so the schema already documents tickerOrCik with an example. The description's "by ticker or CIK" merely restates the schema, adding no new format or constraint detail; baseline 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?

States a concrete resource and scope: "US SEC registrant profile + recent filings," with the lookup key (ticker or CIK) named inline. It is distinguishable from sec_edgar_fulltext by implying a profile lookup rather than full-text search, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The "free, no key" note hints at access conditions but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over sec_edgar_fulltext or the Companies House tools.

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