SEC Cross-Company Financial Comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds context (e.g., returns 2,649 companies with values, top examples) but does not disclose rate limits or pagination. It is consistent with annotations and adds moderate value.

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 concise (3 sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then gives an illustrative example and key format detail. Every sentence adds value and is well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, example usage, period format, and alternatives. It does not explain the return structure in detail, but output schema compensates. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description enhances understanding by giving concrete examples for 'tag' (Revenues) and 'period' (CY2023, CY2023Q4I), and mentions 'unit' (USD, USD/shares). It does not mention 'taxonomy' but schema provides default. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare a financial metric across ALL SEC-reporting companies for a period.' The verb 'compare' and the resource 'financial metric across companies' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like finance.edgar.company_facts (single company) by emphasizing cross-company scope.

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 an explicit example ('Query Revenues for CY2023') and mentions it's a 'Free alternative to Bloomberg/FactSet', which indicates when to use (broad financial comparison). It also explains period format ('CY2023 annual, CY2023Q4I quarterly'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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