get_filing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral limitation ('No protected content is ever returned') and explains that has_nonpublic_counterpart is inferred from filer naming conventions rather than authoritative metadata, which is important for interpreting results.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the nonpublic_counterpart semantics, and the third explicitly reassures about protected content.

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 a single required parameter, an output schema, and one key behavioral caveat, the description is largely complete. It explains the non-authoritative nature of an important field. It could be more complete by explicitly naming get_filing_text as the tool for content, but that is not essential for invocation.

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 only declares accession_number as a string with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by providing the exact expected format ('YYYYMMDD-NNNN'), which is crucial for calling the tool correctly.

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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('metadata for one filing'), and the key identifier ('accession number (YYYYMMDD-NNNN)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filing_text by emphasizing 'metadata' rather than content.

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 metadata for a single filing and explicitly notes when a nonpublic counterpart would be relevant (moving for access under 18 C.F.R. 388.113). However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_filings or get_filing_text, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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