SEC EDGAR

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 usefully discloses the data source (SEC EDGAR), the hard cap of 50 results, and that document links are returned, but it says nothing about rate limits (SEC EDGAR throttles), auth requirements, or whether results are truncated rather than paginated.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the filters, then ends with the source. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical form-type list is somewhat redundant with the schema's own examples.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately signals the return payload (document links) and the source system. Adequate for a 5-parameter read tool, but it could close the loop by noting the sibling 8-K shortcut or the cap's implication that results are truncated rather than paginated.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the YYYY-MM-DD date format, comma-separated forms syntax, and the 1-50 limit bound. The description's filter mentions largely restate the schema, adding only the specific example form types, which the forms field also lists.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists SEC filings') plus the key input granularity (CIK or ticker) and result content (document links). It never names or differentiates itself from the sibling recent_8k_events, which overlaps heavily since 8-K is one of the listed form types.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated filters (form types, date range, limit), so an agent can infer this is the general-purpose filing list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of recent_8k_events as the narrower alternative, nor whether resolve_company should be called first.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source (SEC EDGAR) and the 90-day cap, and read-only behavior is strongly implied by 'Lists', but it does not state pagination, rate limits, or what the returned items look like.

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 verb and resource, with the decoding behavior and examples earning their place. No filler, though slightly more could be trimmed.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, source, and output enrichment. It is nearly complete; only the absence of alternative guidance keeps it from a 5.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the days window ('last N days, max 90') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (8-K filings), plus the scope (last N days, max 90). It adds value beyond the name by explaining that item codes are decoded to plain English and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_filings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer it is for recent 8-K events for a given company. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_filings or the need to resolve the company first via resolve_company.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: matching is fuzzy and capped at the top 5 results, and the data source is SEC EDGAR. It says nothing about auth/rate-limit constraints or what happens when nothing matches, which leaves gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, and the input forms are front-loaded so the agent knows how to fill the one required param immediately.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and with one simple param there is little else to document. It stops short of explaining how multiple (top 5) matches are ordered or returned, which is the one remaining ambiguity for a fuzzy resolver.

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% and the single param is well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics beyond the schema: the match is fuzzy and returns up to 5 candidates, which the schema's format examples do not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb (resolves) and resource (company), and enumerates both the accepted identifier forms and the returned fields (CIK, tickers, exchange, legal name, SIC, description). The sibling tools operate on filings/events rather than entity identity, so the resource distinction is clear even without an explicit cross-reference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup step that should precede filing-oriented calls. There is no explicit 'use this when you have a ticker/name and need a CIK' statement, and no mention of list_filings or recent_8k_events as the downstream alternatives.

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