SEC Company Financial History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, etc. Description adds value by specifying output details (up to 20 values with period dates, form type, fiscal year) and implying the read-only nature. 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, front-loaded with purpose and examples, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, examples, and output structure. Could mention pagination or ordering, but overall complete.

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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal additional semantics. It provides example values for 'tag' but repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the complete history of any XBRL financial concept for a company, provides specific concept examples (Revenues, NetIncomeLoss, Assets, EPS), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'Free alternative to Bloomberg' and contrasting with other SEC EDGAR 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?

Implies usage for historical financial data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools like finance.edgar.company_facts or finance.edgar.filings. No when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are provided.

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