Read SEC Filing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'clean' action, that it returns 'clean text plus provenance', and the auto-read behavior. However, it lacks disclosure about edge cases (e.g., when no matching filing is found, or if both url and query are provided) and does not mention any potential rate limits or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes an illustrative example without any filler. Every clause contributes essential information, making it highly efficiently structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the two usage modes, the return value (clean text plus provenance), and gives an example. It could further elaborate on what 'clean' entails or what 'provenance' includes, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the OR relationship between url and query+formType, and provides a concrete example, which goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 action ('Fetch and clean') and the resource ('a specific SEC filing'). It also distinguishes from siblings like finance_filings by focusing on specific filing retrieval and mentioning the auto-read mode and provenance, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 outlines two usage modes: pass a URL directly, or provide a company query plus formType to auto-read the most recent matching filing, with the example 'latest 10-K for NVDA'. This provides clear context on when to use each, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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