Read Filing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the character budget (with a concrete token-size example) and the 'latest filing' semantics, which clarifies that no filing date parameter is needed. It aligns with annotations and provides context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence uses a concrete Micron 10-K example to justify the budget limit, earning its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable picture of behavior: it returns a portion of text under a character budget. Combined with annotations (read-only, idempotent) and a thorough schema, it is complete enough for a content-extraction tool. It could mention what happens if a section isn't found, but that's a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between section and query modes ('Read a named section... or search its text') and by introducing the 'character budget' concept tied to the budget parameter. It also clarifies 'latest filing' implications, which helps interpret the symbol/form parameters.

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's specific function: 'Read a named section out of a company's latest filing, or search its text.' This identifies the verb (read/search), the resource (company filing), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_edgar_filings (which likely lists filings). The scope is precise and actionable.

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 clear context: it explains that filings are too large to hand over whole, and this tool locates and returns sections under a character budget. It implies use cases (extracting a specific section or searching) without explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it. This is 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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