get_sec_filings

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 explains the content of each entry (filing date, type, title, EDGAR URL, exhibit links) and covers edge cases (non-US symbols, ETFs). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any rate limits or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 very concise, consisting of only three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core function, followed by clear, useful details about the response format and edge cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's complexity (2 parameters, 1 required, simple scalar types) and the existence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, what symbols qualify, and how to interpret empty results. No additional information is necessary for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (symbol and limit). The description adds functional meaning to the symbol parameter by noting it can be a Yahoo ticker or ISIN, and suggests using 'search' for company names. It also mentions limit implicitly via the number of filings. The parameter description in the schema already defines them, so the description provides marginal added value, but the additional context on symbol usage is helpful.

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 that the tool retrieves 'recent SEC filings for a Yahoo symbol', specifying the exact resource (SEC filings) and the key verb ('get'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting that it's specific to SEC filings, whereas siblings like get_quote, get_earnings, or get_news serve different data types.

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 strong usage guidance: it explains that only U.S. SEC-registered issuers file there, so non-US symbols, ETFs, funds, or crypto will return empty results. It also clarifies that an empty result is not an error, preventing misinterpretation. This helps the agent know when this tool is appropriate and what to expect.

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