xbrl_fetch_sec_filing

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting possible side effects. The description discloses the optional loading of the filing for analysis, which implies a state change. However, it does not detail what 'loading' entails (e.g., memory, workspace), nor does it mention permissions or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, uses a clear structure (summary line, paragraph, Args/Returns), and avoids unnecessary text. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes all key elements, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameters adequately. However, it omits error scenarios (e.g., filing not found, ticker resolution failure) and prerequisites (e.g., API key), leaving completeness gaps for a tool with multiple sub-parameters and potential edge cases.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter (cik, ticker, filing_type, date, load_filing). The tool description adds that one of cik/ticker must be provided and ticker auto-resolves, which adds semantic value beyond the schema. However, with schema coverage effectively high (descriptions present), baseline is 3, and the added value is modest.

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 tool fetches an SEC EDGAR filing by CIK or ticker, specifies filing type, and returns metadata. It uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (SEC filing), distinguishing it from siblings like xbrl_list_filings or xbrl_company_facts.

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 explains that either cik or ticker must be provided and that ticker resolves to CIK automatically, giving basic usage constraints. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., when to use list_filings instead) or provide when-not scenarios, which limits guidance for selection.

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