filings_document_sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get sentiment analysis' without specifying what the output looks like (e.g., sentiment score, labels), whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any edge cases. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns domain-specific data.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject. There is no fluff or redundant wording, which is efficient. However, it is so minimal that it omits context that would be helpful, but that omission is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and sparse description, an agent has little context for correct invocation or result interpretation. The description does not mention return format, pagination, or how to handle the documentId. With sibling tools like earnings_transcript_sentiment, more context is needed to disambiguate. This is inadequate for the tool's role.

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?

The input schema thoroughly documents the only parameter (documentId) with a description: 'Document ID (base64-encoded URL) from filing results'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so it meets but does not exceed the 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 verb and resource: 'Get sentiment analysis of an SEC filing document'. It distinguishes from general sentiment tools (sentiment_all, sentiment_news) by specifying 'SEC filing', and from the sibling filings_document_text which retrieves text, not sentiment. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling like earnings_transcript_sentiment, which could cause ambiguity, so it doesn't fully achieve the '5' level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., when to use earnings_transcript_sentiment vs this). An agent would have to infer usage solely from the singular purpose statement, which leaves the choice between similar sentiment tools unclear.

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