get_sec_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool fetches 'most recent' filings and their URLs, but leaves ambiguity about whether it returns the latest filing of each type or a single most recent filing, and does not mention API keys, rate limits, or the format of returned data. The 'raw access' phrase is vague.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action ('Fetches the most recent SEC filings') and adds a brief clarifying clause about raw access. 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is relatively complete for a simple fetch operation. However, it lacks explicit limitations (e.g., whether historical filings are ignored) and does not differentiate from similar tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the ambiguity about filing scope remains.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'symbol', with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains that the tool requires a ticker symbol to fetch filings for a specific company. The parameter name is self-explanatory in context, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 fetches the most recent SEC filings (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) and provides URLs, using the specific verb 'fetches' and naming the resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool 'get_edgar_filings', so it loses a point for missing 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?

The description implies usage by noting it 'provides raw access to corporate regulatory documents', suggesting use when raw documents are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_filing' or 'get_edgar_filings', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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