SEC EDGAR company filings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool returns metadata with accession numbers, form types, and dates, and that identification is by ticker or CIK. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose and key fields, the second specifies identification methods. Every word 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 no output schema, the description mentions returned fields (accession numbers, form types, dates) but omits details on structure, pagination, or count limits. The term 'recent' is vague. While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves gaps for an AI agent needing to parse results.

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% with clear descriptions for cik and ticker. The description's phrase 'Identify by ticker or CIK' reinforces the schema but does not add new meaning, e.g., mutual exclusivity or handling when both provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Recent filings metadata for a company' and specifies common form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, Form 4). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like sec_company_concept (concepts) and sec_company_facts (facts) by focusing on filing metadata.

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 for retrieving filing metadata by ticker or CIK, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sec_full_text_search for textual searches). No when-not-to-use advice is given.

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