get_filing_provenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool summarizes 'public SEC filing data provenance', implying a read-only operation. It includes a disclaimer about not providing investment advice. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only status, rate limits, or authentication 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 consists of two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence provides the core purpose, and the second adds a necessary disclaimer. Every word serves a purpose.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It mentions return fields (URL, timestamp, hash) but does not address error handling, format, or how the parameter is used. The agent may not be able to reliably invoke the tool.

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 one required string parameter 'accession_number' with minLength 1, but the description does not explain its meaning, format, or how it relates to provenance. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameter, but it fails to do so.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'source provenance for an imported SEC Form 4 filing'. It specifies what is included (URL, timestamp, hash). It distinguishes from siblings like 'assess_insider_activity' and 'get_freshness' by focusing on provenance.

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 the sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or specific contexts. The agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.

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