Veroq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully adds cost information ('2 credits'), data source provenance ('Links directly to SEC EDGAR'), and return value structure ('Filing list with form type, title...'), which are critical for agent decision-making.

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?

Excellent structure with clearly labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence earns its place; no filler text. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by explicitly documenting the return structure (fields included in the filing list) and provides usage context, cost, and examples.

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 100% (ticker symbol with examples), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds an EXAMPLE section showing '{ "ticker": "TSLA" }', which reinforces usage but does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond the well-documented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('SEC filings' with specific examples: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K). It distinguishes from siblings like veroq_ticker_news or veroq_earnings by explicitly mentioning regulatory filing types and SEC EDGAR source links.

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?

Includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating 'For regulatory filing history and due diligence,' which provides clear context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named sibling alternatives (e.g., contrasting with veroq_ticker_news for current news).

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