get_insider_filing

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 reveals the granularity ('every trade'), the included components (owners, holdings, footnotes), and characterizes the data as 'structured'. It does not discuss failure modes or authentication, but for a simple read-only tool this provides solid transparency about what to expect.

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 using an em dash to efficiently list the included components. Every word adds value: it names the resource, scope, and contents without repetition or 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the response will contain. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention the need to first obtain an accession from a search or address invalid accession behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes the only parameter, accession, as 'Filing accession number,' achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the context that the accession refers specifically to a Form 3/4/5 ownership filing, but it does not add format, source, or usage details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'full structured detail of a single Form 3/4/5 ownership filing' and enumerates specific contents (owners, every trade, holdings, footnotes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_filings or search_insider_transactions, which retrieve lists or summaries rather than a single filing's complete detail.

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 is implied: use this tool when you have an accession number and need the complete detail of a single ownership filing. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as extract_filing_section or search_insider_transactions, nor any statement about when not to use it or a prerequisite to first obtain an accession via a search tool.

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