get_sec_8k_filings

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the regulatory cutoff, the distinction between Item 1.05 and Item 8.01, configurable item filters, and pagination behavior via `next_offset`. There is no contradiction with 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 efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short contextual note about items and timing, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important identification cues are front-loaded. The length is justified by the need to document eight parameters.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. All eight parameters are semantically documented, pagination is explained, and the tool's narrow scope is clear. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage and provides only types and defaults, so the description carries the full burden. The Args section thoroughly documents every parameter with format examples, constraints (e.g., uppercase ticker, 4-digit year, 1-200 limit), and dependencies (e.g., month requires year). This far exceeds the baseline for an uncovered 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('SEC Form 8-K filings'), and a clear scope ('disclosing cybersecurity incidents'). It further distinguishes itself by naming the exact SEC items covered, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does and how it differs from unrelated siblings.

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 clear context for use: it covers Item 1.05 and Item 8.01 filings, explains the regulatory timeline, and gives a conditional rule ('month requires year'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling appears to be an alternative, so the lack of a when-not-to-use clause is not a meaningful gap.

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