get_filings

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 the tool returns a list with URLs, dates, and fiscal period assignments, which gives some context about output format. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and what it returns. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Fetch SEC filing metadata'), and the second sentence adds necessary detail about filing types and returned data. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse.

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 (3 required parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and the types of filings returned, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and how it differs from siblings. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (ticker, year, quarter) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details—it doesn't explain what 'ticker' represents, the format of 'year' and 'quarter', or how they filter results. However, since the tool has an output schema (as per context signals), the baseline is adjusted; the description implies parameters are used to fetch metadata but doesn't compensate for the low 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's purpose: 'Fetch SEC filing metadata for a company' specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (SEC filing metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_filing_sections' (which likely extracts sections) and 'get_financials' (which likely provides financial data), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific about what types of filings are returned (10-Q, 10-K, 8-K), which adds clarity.

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 when to choose 'get_filings' over 'get_financials' or 'search_metrics', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (fetching metadata for SEC filings), but explicit usage guidelines are missing.

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