get_subsidiaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content (subsidiaries with name and jurisdiction), but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it returns an empty array if no Exhibit 21, or any error conditions. The behavior is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 of 12 words. It clearly states the key information without any filler or repetition, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the source (10-K Exhibit 21) and the output fields (name and jurisdiction). It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., an array of objects), but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and high parameter clarity.

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% for the single 'accession' parameter, described as '10-K accession number.' The description reinforces that the accession refers to a 10-K and that data comes from Exhibit 21, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 returns subsidiaries disclosed in a 10-K's Exhibit 21, including name and jurisdiction. It uses a specific noun phrase that implies a retrieval action, and it is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on other filing content or search operations.

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 implies usage context: when you need subsidiaries from a 10-K Exhibit 21 and have an accession number. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like extract_filing_section, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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