Filing sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds no behavioral details (e.g., that data is extracted text, potential size, or that it's a read operation). It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded and efficient. However, it is arguably too minimal and could be improved without losing conciseness.

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 tool returns extracted text sections, but the description lacks detail on what sections are (e.g., Item 1, Item 2), output format, or how it relates to sibling tools like stocks_section. With no output schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra meaning (e.g., format of accession number, meaning of 'ticker'). 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 states it returns 'all extracted text sections of a filing', but does not specify what a filing is (e.g., SEC filing) or differentiate from sibling tools like stocks_filing (which likely returns filing metadata) or stocks_section (singular). The verb is implied but not explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like stocks_filings (list filings) and stocks_section (single section). No prerequisites or context like requiring ticker and accession are mentioned.

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