Sec Company Facts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden. '查询' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval, and '结构化数据' signals the output type. However, it does not disclose behavior around invalid identifiers, data freshness, rate limits, or the ticker-vs-cik requirement, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the source (SEC EDGAR), the action (query), and the output type (structured financial data), earning every word.

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 has an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks usage boundaries and sibling differentiation, and the all-optional parameters (ticker vs cik) are not explained at the description level. It is minimally adequate but leaves selection and invocation decisions partially unsupported.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description adds examples ('营收/净利/研发支出') that map to the metrics parameter, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb '查询' (query), the resource '美股公司财报（SEC EDGAR）', and the kind of data returned ('营收/净利/研发支出等结构化数据'). It is unambiguous about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling sec_compare_companies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sec_compare_companies, cninfo_company_profile, or web_search. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and schema alone.

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