get_recent_continuing_disclosures

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: auto-expansion for EMMA abbreviations and direct PDF links. However, it does not disclose how recent the filings are, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with behavioral context, making it lean and effective.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and some behavior but omits details about response structure, ordering, or pagination. It is sufficient for basic usage but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 67% (two params have descriptions about auto-expansion). The tool description adds no further parameter details. While the schema already covers some meaning, the description misses the opportunity to elaborate, e.g., on the 'limit' parameter's effect.

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 specifies the tool returns recent continuing-disclosure filings and lists examples (audited financials, material events, rating changes, quarterly operating data). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on post-issuance credit work and PDF links, setting it apart from similar document retrieval tools like get_recent_annual_reports.

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 implies use for post-issuance credit analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_recent_annual_reports or get_recent_official_statements. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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