company-intel

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the upstream source (SEC EDGAR public API), that it is free and always current. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or discuss rate limits, but the disclosed source and nature imply safe read operations.

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 a single efficient paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting minor details like 'Free upstream: SEC EDGAR public API' which could be inferred.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields and mentions data freshness. It covers the tool's main functionality but lacks behavior on invalid tickers. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a tool with a single parameter.

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?

The single parameter 'ticker' has a schema description clarifying case-insensitivity and class-suffix handling. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool returns SEC EDGAR due diligence data for US public companies by ticker, listing specific data fields like legal name, CIK, SIC code, etc. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings with a unique set of outputs.

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 description provides explicit use cases: 'Use before any agent task involving US public company identification, regulatory filing assessment, financial analysis, or industry classification.' It mentions the free, always-current data source but does not specify when not to use it or contrast with overlapping siblings like 'sec-filing-intel' or 'company-due-diligence'.

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