download_filing_text

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior beyond them: pagination via has_more/next_offset, a size-limit fallback that returns link_only, the fact that size is checked BEFORE downloading, and case-insensitive matching. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs.

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 the core purpose, then mode-by-mode bullets that each earn their place. The trailing 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks partly restate defaults already present in the schema, adding mild redundancy.

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 four-parameter tool with pagination and mode branching, the description is nearly complete: it covers modes, continuation, and the oversized-document fallback, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The only gap is routing guidance versus sibling filing tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning; it does document all four (filing_url with URL example, max_length as chars per page, offset as character position, search as case-insensitive phrase). It misses only edge details such as how max_length interacts with the size limit or the valid bounds of offset.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read or search the text of one SEC filing document') and enumerates three named modes with distinct return shapes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_filing_content or full_text_search without opening either 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?

Gives clear operational context: modes are chosen automatically, and it explicitly instructs to call again with offset=next_offset when has_more is true, or use offset=position after a search. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over the many filing-reading siblings (get_filing_content, get_filing_documents, full_text_search).

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