get_edgar_filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavior. It adds useful context about real-time freshness, timestamp precision, and the live firehose behavior. However, it omits details such as what happens when both symbol and query are provided, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving noticeable gaps.

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 and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then clearly listing the three modes in a bulleted list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 params, three modes) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the main usage patterns and key behavioral nuance (real-time). The only notable omission is the precedence rule when both symbol and query are supplied, which would round out completeness.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining how parameter combinations select different operational modes (symbol, query, firehose), going beyond the individual parameter descriptions in 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 retrieves SEC EDGAR filings and describes three specific modes based on input. It is specific and actionable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool get_sec_filings, so it misses the highest level of sibling distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode based on which parameters are set (symbol, query, or neither). It does not, however, mention when to avoid this tool or prefer an alternative sibling, stopping short of a perfect score.

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