list_filings

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the sorting (newest-first) but fails to mention other behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with one sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous words; every part adds value.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing fields, but omits details like possible values, pagination, or error conditions. For a simple list tool with one param, it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the sole parameter 'org_id' beyond implying it identifies a committee. It lists output fields (type, period, amended) but provides no definitions or context for those, leaving meaning unclear.

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 lists all reports for a committee, including details like type, period, and amendment status, sorted newest-first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_report' which fetch individual reports, though it does not explicitly name the verb.

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 when needing a list of filings for a committee, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Siblings like 'get_report' exist for single-record lookups, but this is not stated.

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