sec_filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the return type (links to EDGAR) but does not mention edge cases (e.g., invalid ticker), rate limits, or pagination. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, labeled arguments, and examples. It is concise but could be tightened by removing redundant statements (e.g., 'Returns links...' could be merged).

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and provides examples. Given that an output schema exists (implied), it need not detail return values beyond stating the type. Minor omissions (e.g., error handling) do not significantly impact completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all three parameters with explanations, examples, defaults, and options. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, making it highly useful for an agent.

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 retrieves SEC filings for a US-listed company and returns links to documents on EDGAR, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sec_filing_search' by focusing on known tickers and filing types.

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 clear parameter explanations and examples that imply usage scenarios (e.g., retrieving annual or quarterly reports). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'sec_filing_search', but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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