edgar_company_filings

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the fullHistory mechanics, shard fetching, honesty in totalAvailable (recent + all shard counts), cap/failure disclosure (PARTIAL-BY-CAP, PARTIAL-BY-FAILURE), and the shared EDGAR throttle gate. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but efficient, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and input summary, then adds behavioral notes. However, it could benefit from minor structuring (e.g., listing parameters) to improve scanability for an agent.

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 (6 parameters, shard logic, throttle gate, completeness guarantees) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input, behavior, edge cases (partial responses), and return format (filings with archive URL). It provides sufficient detail for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds substantial value: explains the default for limit (20), maxShards (10), fullHistory (false), clarifies that offset applies to recent window, and describes the interplay between fullHistory and maxShards. It also defines keyless access and the source URL.

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 it returns a company's SEC filings from data.sec.gov, specifying inputs (cikOrTicker, forms, limit, offset, fullHistory, maxShards) and output (filings with real primary-document URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like edgar_company_facts or edgar_full_text_search by focusing on filings retrieval.

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 fullHistory (for complete history vs. recent window), how pagination works (offset vs. maxShards), and what to do if capped (raise maxShards). It also notes the EDGAR throttle gate and that CIK is used, not SAM UEI/DUNS. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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