read_filing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool 'returns it under a character budget' and explains the processing (stripping markup), which is important contextual behavior. It also implicitly indicates a read-only nature through the verb 'Read.' However, it doesn't disclose edge-case behaviors such as what happens if both query and section are provided, or if no match is found, which would be valuable for an agent.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently conveys both what the tool does and why it is necessary, without any 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 that the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the core functionality and the character budget constraint. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described. However, it could be more complete by clarifying how the 'latest filing' is determined (e.g., latest of the specified form) or how query and section interact, which are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context around the budget (explaining the token sizes) and the query (search operation), but it does not significantly add to the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already explains each parameter in detail, so the description's contribution is marginal.

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 'Read a named section out of a company's latest filing, or search its text,' identifying both the resource (filing) and the specific actions (read section, search text). It also differentiates itself from simply returning the whole filing by emphasizing the token-size problem, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sec_filings that likely list filings.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need a specific section or text excerpt from a filing rather than the entire document. The explanation about filings being too large implicitly warns against other methods that might return whole documents. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it misses the full 'when not to use' guidance.

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