get_filing_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the truncation behavior ('at most max_chars', 'reports total_chars when truncated') and the deprecated status, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is clear enough for a deprecated text-retrieval alias.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the deprecation and core behavior, then provides routing guidance to alternatives. Every sentence 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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description covers deprecation, truncation, and alternative tools well, but incomplete parameter semantics for file_id and accession_number prevent full completeness. It is adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains max_chars; the meanings of accession_number and file_id, and their relationship, are left undocumented. This is a notable gap for an agent trying to call 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 it is a deprecated alias for read_document and specifies the exact behavior: 'Returns at most max_chars of extracted text.' It names the resource (filing text), the operation (bounded read), and distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as deprecated and bounded.

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?

It explicitly steers agents away from this tool for large filings by recommending get_document_outline, search_within_document, and read_document. However, it does not clearly describe when this tool should still be used, only implies it may be acceptable for smaller bounded reads.

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