get_sec_filings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the data source (SEC EDGAR via edgartools) and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly declare that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any limitations like pagination or rate limits. The description is adequate but not richly transparent about edge behaviors.

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 structured with a purpose sentence, a usage sentence, and a well-organized Args list. It is longer than minimal due to the form_type explanations, but every sentence adds value and the critical information (purpose and usage) is front-loaded. No fluff is present.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and data source. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It is fully complete for correct invocation and selection.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description fully compensates. It explains ticker as a stock ticker symbol, form_type with a list of common values and their meanings (including the default ''), and max_results with its default. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 'List recent SEC filings for a company with EDGAR links,' which is a specific verb (List) plus resource (SEC filings) and scope (for a company). It further clarifies the purpose by stating it is used to find filing dates and document URLs, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling get_filing_text by positioning itself as the prerequisite step.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find filing dates and document URLs before calling get_filing_text,' giving clear when-to-use context. It also details form_type options with their meanings. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like get_insider_filings, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides sufficient guidance for typical usage.

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