list_sec_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that this tool is for verifying available dates and is not a mandatory first step, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe any rate limits, sorting, pagination, or response behavior. For a listing tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a summary, strategy, critical rules, examples, and Args. It is longer than necessary, and the strategy/critical_rules sections slightly overlap, but every section serves a distinct purpose and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: when to use, when to skip, parameter meanings, and example flows. It does not elaborate on return value details, but the output schema presumably handles that. Overall this is a complete, decision-useful description.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description's 'Args' section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: ticker with an example, form as a filing type filter with the ability to omit, and limit with default and max values. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 opens with 'List available SEC filings for a company,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like keyword_search and download_sec_report. The examples reinforce the purpose by showing when to list filings versus skipping to search or download.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: skip this tool if the user specifies a year/date, and instead go to keyword_search or download_sec_report. It also states the fallback condition (if download fails due to invalid date/missing filing) and includes concrete examples for both skip and use cases.

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