eu-filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the underlying API (filings.xbrl.org) and a geographic scope, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or any quirks related to the various methods.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. It does not repeat schema information or add fluff, but it also omits structural detail about the multiple operation modes.

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?

With 21 methods, 18 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling context, the description is far too shallow to guide an agent through method selection and invocation. It only gives a high-level domain overview, leaving the agent to parse the large schema without additional context.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 18 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the API source, so the schema carries the heavy lifting and the 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 clearly states it is a unified tool for European financial filings, giving access to company filings, financial statements, and XBRL data. It has a specific domain (ESEF) and this distinguishes it from unrelated tools, though it does not list the many specific operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or which method to invoke for a given task.

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