get_sec_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact shape of each entry (date, type, title, EDGAR URL, exhibit links) and the important negative-result semantics ('An empty result says nothing about the symbol'). It does not state pagination or how many filings are typically returned, but the coverage of empty-result meaning is a real value-add.

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 with the core purpose, then the return shape, then the caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. Slight length is justified by the enumeration of fields and issuer caveats, though the field list overlaps with what the output schema already conveys.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, this covers the remaining unknowns well: what an empty result means and which instrument classes will never return filings. Return-value detail is technically redundant given the output schema, and pagination behavior is unmentioned, keeping it just short of full completeness.

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 100%: both 'symbol' (accepts ticker or ISIN, with the 'use search first' hint) and 'limit' (max results, default 25) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of 'recent' filings, which loosely frames the limit parameter but supplies no new syntax or format detail — the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get recent SEC filings for a Yahoo symbol') and enumerates the fields each entry contains, so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or contrast against any of the 20 sibling get_* tools, though the SEC-filings resource is distinctive enough to separate it in practice.

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?

Usage context is implied through the caveats ('Only issuers registered with the U.S. SEC file there, so a non-US symbol has none, and neither do ETFs, funds or crypto'), which tells the agent when to expect empty results. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over get_financials, get_company_info, or get_insider_activity, nor does it name any alternative, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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