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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting details like how many filings are returned (controlled by n), authentication needs, or any side effects. This significant gap results in a score of 2.

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 concise phrase, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no wasted words. While it could include more detail without losing conciseness, the current form is efficient and direct. Score 4 reflects good conciseness with room for slight structural improvement.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'n' parameter or describe the return data format. A complete description would at least mention the result count and what a filing entry contains. This inadequacy yields a score of 2.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It adds 'equity' context to the symbol parameter but completely ignores the 'n' parameter (count of filings). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leading to a score of 2.

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 'Latest SEC filings for an equity symbol' clearly states the action (retrieve filings) and the resource (SEC filings for a symbol). It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like earnings or history, which could be considered related. A 4 is appropriate due to the lack of sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use filings versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. This scores a 2 as there is no usage guidance.

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