SEC Filings (EDGAR)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free, official, no API key', lists the exact returned fields (form type, dates, accession number, URL), and establishes authoritative provenance. It omits details like rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool this is sufficient disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, query methods, and key value propositions (free, official, no API key) without wasted words. Every part contributes essential information.

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 is quite complete: it explains the purpose, input methods, output contents, and source reliability. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or edge cases, but given the simplicity (3 params, one required) and the presence of a sibling read tool, coverage is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema—it repeats the query types and implies recency, but the schema already documents ticker/name/CIK and limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List a company's recent SEC filings from EDGAR' with the query options (ticker, name, or CIK). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like finance_filing_read (which reads a specific filing) and finance_financials (which likely fetches financial data).

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 implies usage by specifying the listing function and output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The mention of returning a 'direct document URL' hints at pairing with a read tool, but this is not made explicit.

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