filings_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like (especially since there is no output schema). The description is not misleading, but it is far from transparent.

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 with no redundant words. It states the core functionality immediately and avoids unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema and sits among many filing-related siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the time range for 'recent', the return format, or how it differs from filings_search. An agent cannot fully judge when or how to use this tool without additional context.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains ticker, form, and limit. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 ('recent SEC filings'), and the target (a company). It distinguishes this from other filing tools like filings_search or filings_document_text by focusing on 'recent' filings, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from filings_forms or filings_list_forms.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as filings_search. An agent is left to infer the use case from the name and description alone.

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