get_recent_filings

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses useful behavioral traits: newest-first ordering, incomplete English title coverage, and the 3-month market-wide search limit. It omits pagination behavior and any auth/rate-limit notes, so it is strong but not complete for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by tight bullets, each earning its place with concrete enum glosses. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description does cover the high-value parameters. However, with 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the four undocumented parameters — particularly the semantically ambiguous include_amended_originals — leave real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 carries the burden. It does well on the non-obvious ones — company accepts ticker/corp_code/name, filing_type enum values are explained with examples, and start_date/end_date format is given — but days, page, limit, and especially include_amended_originals get no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List DART filings'), the sort order ('newest first'), and a data caveat ('English titles where known'). It also names the sibling get_filing_text and the handoff key (rcept_no), so an agent can distinguish listing from reading without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to omit company (market-wide) and attaches the resulting constraint (DART limits market-wide searches to 3 months). It also states that start_date/end_date override days and that get_filing_text should be used for filing bodies, which is clear routing guidance.

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