parse_sec_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (parsing to JSON) and sequencing ('typically called immediately after download'), but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or whether existing JSON files are overwritten. However, parsing is inherently non-destructive, and the description does not contradict any 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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by concise, well-structured strategy and critical rules sections. The Args list is formatted cleanly with examples, ensuring every line adds value without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description covers purpose, usage conditions, and all parameter semantics, making it quite complete. Minor gaps include a lack of detail on how 'page-split' is structured or how exhibits are handled, but these are likely addressed by the output schema and are not critical.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining each parameter with examples: 'ticker: Stock ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL', 'form: Report type, e.g. 10-K, 10-Q, 6-K, 8-K', and 'report_date: Report date (fiscal period end date), e.g. 2025-01-31.' It even clarifies the specific meaning of report_date, which is absent from the 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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Parse a downloaded HTML report (and HTML exhibits, if present) into a page-split JSON file.' This specifies the verb (parse), resource (downloaded HTML report), and output (page-split JSON). The mention of 'immediately after download_sec_report' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or listing.

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 'strategy' section explicitly lists two specific system states when the tool should be invoked: after a successful download via download_sec_report, or when a retrieval tool returns a parsing error. The 'critical_rules' further states 'Never call this tool preemptively,' providing clear exclusions and naming the prerequisite tool.

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