get_sec_filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses output contents (filing date, type, title, EDGAR URL, exhibit links), the requirement for a native Yahoo ticker (not ISIN/WKN), and the edge case of empty results for ETFs/funds/crypto. This significantly exceeds minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it states the main purpose first, then gives usage details and output contents in a compact paragraph. Each sentence provides unique information without redundancy. The use of backticks for symbols aids readability, and there is no fluff.

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 moderate complexity, an output schema exists (so return values are formally documented), and the description covers usage constraints, output fields, and edge cases. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly, with no critical gaps.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable extra context for the 'symbol' parameter (must be a native ticker, examples, and how to resolve via search). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema fully covers it. Overall, the description enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Get recent SEC filings for a Yahoo symbol.' It specifies the resource (SEC filings), the action (get), and the input (Yahoo symbol), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_news. The equity-only note further clarifies its scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when you need recent SEC filings for a valid Yahoo ticker. It also tells users what to do if they have an ISIN/WKN (use 'search' first), and explains that it returns empty results for non-equities. This is clear usage context without needing alternative tool comparisons.

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