Get Edgar Filings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: real-time feed timing, timestamp precision, full-text search scope (2001-present), and firehose behavior. This goes well beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 despite covering three modes. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses a clean bullet-style list for the modes. Every sentence serves a purpose, and no repetition of schema or annotation content occurs.

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 tool with three modes, four parameters, and no output schema, the description provides complete operational guidance. It explains mode selection, data scope, and timestamp behavior. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter constraints, so no critical information is missing.

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 descriptions already cover all four parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how parameter combinations select different modes, which is not explicit in the schema. That relationship between symbol/query and behavior is the key semantic addition.

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 uses a specific verb ("get") and resource ("SEC EDGAR filings") and clearly distinguishes three modes based on parameters. It goes beyond a simple definition by explaining the real-time nature and the scope of each mode, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like read_filing or get_earnings.

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 explicitly explains three usage modes based on which parameters are set, giving clear guidance on when to use symbol, query, or neither. It does not name alternative tools for exclusions, but the mode breakdown effectively communicates selection criteria.

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