filings_forms

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives no insight into output format, pagination, error behavior, or how the year/quarter parameters affect results. For a query tool, this is a significant gap; the agent has no idea what to expect beyond a vague 'get filings'.

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 that jumps straight to the action and object. There is zero fluff or repetition, and the sentence is front-loaded with the key element ('Get specific SEC form type filings'). It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the function.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how parameters like year and quarter interplay, what a 'limit' means in terms of pagination, or what the response structure looks like. Sibling tools like filings_recent or filings_document_text have more complex contexts, but even for a basic query, the agent lacks guidance on expected results or edge cases.

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 100%, so each parameter (ticker, formType, year, quarter, limit) already has a textual description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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 states the core function clearly: fetching SEC form filings for a company and filtering them by a specific form type. It distinguishes itself from broader siblings like filings_recent by implying a formType filter, though it does not name alternatives explicitly. A specific verb and resource are present, so it earns a 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as filings_recent, filings_search, or filings_document_text. No context about the intended use case, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided. The description is purely a statement of function, leaving the agent to infer when it is the right choice.

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