extract_filing_section

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 states the action and document types but does not disclose return format, whether item names or codes are accepted, error behavior, or any limitations. The description essentially restates the tool's purpose without adding behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, object, and document types in a compact form.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must be more comprehensive. It does not specify what the tool returns, how accession should be determined, or resolve the mismatch between 'named item' and the schema's item codes (e.g., '1A', '5.02'). The tool description leaves enough ambiguity that an agent might invoke it incorrectly.

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 documents the 'item' parameter with examples but leaves 'accession' undocumented. The description partially compensates by referring to 'named item' and providing examples like Risk Factors and MD&A, which align with the schema examples. However, it does not explain what accession refers to, and there is ambiguity between named labels and item codes (e.g., '5.02'), so the description adds only modest value 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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and clearly identifies the resource ('a named item') and source ('10-K/10-Q/8-K primary document'), with concrete examples like Risk Factors and MD&A. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools by focusing on section extraction from a specific filing.

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 helpful context that this tool works on 10-K/10-Q/8-K primary documents, implying it should be used when a specific section of an identified filing is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as full_text_search or list_filing_documents, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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