sec_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose operational traits beyond the schema: cost ($0.0025 USDC per call) and p99 latency (3000ms), which are genuinely useful for planning. It does not cover error behavior, rate limits beyond latency, or auth, but the cost/latency disclosure is meaningful and absent from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and returned content, then parameters, then cost/latency. It is dense but each clause carries information; the parameter recap is slightly redundant with the schema but remains scannable and useful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers return content (profile, filings, financials), parameter semantics, and operational cost/latency. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor omissions like error/edge behavior.

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 60%, and the description compensates well: it clarifies that exactly one of ticker/cik is required (the schema lists zero required params, so this is additive), gives a forms example, and restates limit defaults/ranges and include_financials default. Some content duplicates the schema, but the 'one required' constraint and forms example add real meaning.

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 states a concrete resource (US public company data from SEC EDGAR) and enumerates the exact content returned: company profile, recent filings by form type, document links, and optional annual financials. No sibling tool covers EDGAR filings, so it is distinguishable from company_lookup/company_brief without opening a schema.

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?

Scope is implied by 'US public company data from SEC EDGAR' and the form-type examples, giving the agent a sense of the fitting case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., company_lookup for general profiles), nor any exclusions.

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