sec_filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is 'credential-free' and returns metadata and a URL, but does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the filing is not found. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 four sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main action and then details what it returns and parameters. Could be streamlined, but it is clear and concise.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description states what is returned (metadata and URL) and that it is credential-free. It does not detail the metadata fields, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 that 'cik or ticker' can be provided alongside accession, which slightly clarifies usage, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'a single filing by accession number'. It mentions it returns 'metadata and primary document URL', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sec_company_search or sec_company_submissions that have different purposes.

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 some parameter guidance ('Provide accession plus cik or ticker'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sec_filing_sections or sec_full_text_search. It lacks 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.