Get SEC filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: chronological ordering (newest first), inclusion of amended forms when requesting base forms, form type semantics (10-K annual, 8-K event, etc.), and direct document URLs. This enriches the safety profile with functional details.

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 longer than a single sentence but every clause earns its place: it covers purpose, output, form types, alternatives, and limitations without redundancy. The opening sentence front-loads the core function. Slightly dense but well-structured, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it produces, how to filter, when to use it versus alternatives, and geographic scope. Since no output schema exists, the mention of 'direct document URLs' gives a clear expectation of the return value. The tool is well-covered.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining form type filters (e.g., '10-K annual report') and the amended-forms rule ('10-K/A is returned when you ask for its base form'), which are not fully captured in the schema parameter descriptions. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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's function: 'Recent SEC EDGAR filings for one US-listed company, newest first, with direct document URLs you can cite or fetch.' It specifies the output (filings), ordering, and purpose (locate documents), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning search_sec_filings and get_sec_financials as alternatives for different needs.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find documents for a company you can already name.' It also names alternatives and their purposes—'Use search_sec_filings instead to search filing text across all companies, and get_sec_financials to read reported numbers rather than locate documents'—plus a clear scope limitation ('US SEC registrants only').

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