filings_document_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action but does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or what kind of text is returned (e.g., raw HTML vs clean text). It lacks details that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No fluff or unnecessary detail, perfectly concise.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, this is minimally complete. However, it does not hint at the structure of the response (e.g., that it returns raw text) or note any potential size/format issues, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema describes the documentId parameter completely (base64-encoded URL from filing results), covering 100% of the parameter. The description itself adds no additional semantic nuance beyond restating 'by its document ID', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (Get), the resource (full text of an SEC filing document), and the key identifier (document ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like filings_document_sentiment, which analyze sentiment rather than retrieve text.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as filings_search or filings_recent. No mention of prerequisites, sources of documentId, or exclusions.

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