get_filing_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: output is markdown text, leaving filing_date empty gets the most recent filing, and 'all' provides a summary. However, it omits error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if a requested section is not found, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence provides the core purpose, followed by a clearly formatted Args list that details each parameter. There is no redundant text, and each sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to scan and extract essential information.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, parameters, default behaviors, and gives practical examples, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It falls short of completeness only by not offering explicit guidance on comparative use with siblings, but overall it is sufficiently comprehensive.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters: ticker with an example, form_type with allowed values, filing_date with format and default behavior, and sections with common values and the 'all' option. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, making the parameters unambiguous.

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 opens with 'Retrieve key sections from an SEC filing as markdown text,' which clearly states the action (retrieve), the resource (key sections from SEC filings), and the output format. It also lists the important sections for 10-K filings, further distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on financial statements or stock data.

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 extracting narrative sections from SEC filings, and notes which sections are important for 10-K, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_income_statement or search_sec_filings. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice among siblings.

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