get_filing_document

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: redirects are not followed, text may be null if bytes do not decode strictly as UTF-8, page boundaries can split characters, sha256 and total_bytes describe the whole file, and next_offset is null on the last page. It also warns that file contents are filer-authored material, not instructions, which is important open-world safety context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by dense but relevant usage and return-field details. Some clauses are packed together, but nearly every sentence contributes practical information for invoking or interpreting the tool.

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 read-only, open-world paginated file retrieval tool, the description covers URL formats, pagination, byte handling, checksum semantics, and content-type context. It is mostly complete, though the max_bytes parameter and any practical size limits remain unaddressed; the existing output schema reduces the need to explain return fields further.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains url including accepted SEC URL forms and explains offset indirectly through the byte-range and next_offset pagination behavior, but it never explicitly defines max_bytes or its default/limit, leaving one of three parameters under-specified.

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 a specific action and resource: fetching any file from a filing folder or an SEC company list byte-for-byte, one page at a time. It is distinguishable from generic file tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_filing_text, get_filing_xbrl, or get_filing_document listing tools.

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?

Usage is implied through the accepted URL formats and pagination instructions, giving the agent a clear sense of when this tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_filing_text or get_filing_xbrl, nor any stated exclusions.

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