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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.01, $0.05 with sections) and the section-extraction behavior (from latest 10-K/10-Q). However, it does not mention default response shape, pagination, or potential side effects—though the tool is clearly read-only.

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 the core purpose, followed by cost and optional features. No redundant or vague wording—every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points (what tool is for, how to get sections, costs). It does not describe the structure of the returned index, but that is not essential for tool selection and invocation. The schema fills parameter-specific gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the pricing implications of sections and that sections extract from the latest filing unless an accession is specified. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool provides an SEC filing index (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, proxies) for a ticker, with an optional section-extraction capability. This distinct resource and action sets it apart from sibling tools like get_bars or get_fundamentals.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (filing lookups) and even explains how to use sections for full-text extraction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the niche purpose is self-evident among siblings.

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