list_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it delivers: it discloses newest-first ordering, the EDGAR submissions index source, prefix matching for forms (including amendments), the limit range of 1-100, and the output as a lean header plus rows. It could also clarify behavior when both ticker and cik are supplied, but the provided details are substantial.

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 tightly structured: an opening function statement, a parameter explanation sentence, and a use-case sentence. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what it returns, how to identify the company, available filters, and why an agent should call it. It is complete enough to invoke correctly and to know what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. Each parameter is covered: ticker and cik for identification, form with an example and prefix-matching behavior, and limit with an explicit 1-100 range. This exceeds the schema's bare property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a company's recent SEC filings (newest first) from the EDGAR submissions index.' It also describes the output shape as 'a lean company header plus filing rows,' making the tool's function unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning this tool as a discovery step before calling get_financials.

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 gives clear context: use this to discover which fiscal years or filings are available before calling get_financials. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_financials_batch or exclusion cases, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough to inform typical selection.

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