get_filing_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parsing and returning narrative/tables with metadata, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main action and output, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the source (SEC filings), action (parse), and result (narrative/tables with metadata).

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output details in the description. However, for a parsing tool with many configuration options, more guidance on parameter usage and behavioral context would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'sections' and 'format' without explaining what specific sections are available (e.g., 'Management Discussion'), what 'summary' vs 'full' entails, or the purpose of parameters like 'tables_only' and 'output'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: parsing qualitative sections from SEC 10-K or 10-Q filings and returning narrative/tables with metadata. It specifies the verb ('parse'), resource ('qualitative sections from SEC 10-K or 10-Q filings'), and output type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_filings' or 'get_financials', which likely retrieve different aspects of filings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_filings' (which might retrieve entire filings) or 'get_financials' (which might focus on quantitative data), leaving the agent without context for tool selection. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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