sec_edgar_list_filings

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results include links to the primary document and implies read-only behavior with 'Lists', but does not disclose potential limper or access restrictions. Since the tool is a simple read, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with zero redundant content. It leads with the action, includes a concrete example, and conveys both purpose and the key optional parameter behavior efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return characteristics. It does not mention edge cases like invalid tickers, but such details are not necessary for a simple listing function.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does offer an example for form_type ('10-K', '10-Q') which slightly reinforces the schema's meaning, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lists a company's most recent SEC filings with links to the primary document.' This uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a distinct resource ('company's most recent SEC filings'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_concept_series.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve recent filings) and explains how to narrow results with form_type. It does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or name sibling alternatives, but the siblings address different data, so the guidance is sufficient.

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