get_filing_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the windowed/paginated behavior and the truncated flag, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains pagination. No filler, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: how to fetch, paginate, and retry. It lacks details about the response structure beyond 'truncated' and 'next_offset', but is adequate for a simple fetch tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: 'url' is clarified as an EDGAR Archives URL, and 'offset' is implicitly explained through 'next_offset'. 'limit' is only hinted at via 'window', but the context makes it understandable.

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 fetches the text of a filing document from its EDGAR Archives URL. The verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'text of a filing document' make the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_filings or lookup_company.

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 usage context: call this when you have a filing document's EDGAR Archives URL and need its text. It also provides pagination guidance ('if truncated is true, call again with next_offset'), but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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