get_filing_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: a 25MB size gate, pagination via has_more/next_offset, the 50,000-character first-page limit, token-efficiency implications of each mode, and the ai_note handoff. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read tool.

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 content is information-dense and mostly earns its place, but the ASCII box art consumes significant space for stylistic rather than informational value, and the marketing framing ('SMART & EFFICIENT') is filler. Front-loading is acceptable but the boxes make it bulkier than needed.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers modes, workflow, file-size handling, pagination, and every parameter thoroughly. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 carries the full burden, and it largely delivers: it explains ticker examples, filing_type values ('10-Q', '10-K', '8-K') and the None=latest default, get_full_content behavior, and specific_metrics with a concrete example plus the None fallback. Minor gaps remain (exact metric-name casing rules), so not a full 5.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get SEC financial data') and explains its dual-mode nature (generic vs specific metrics). It differentiates from siblings by naming get_available_metrics and download_filing_text as workflow partners. However, the headline purpose is somewhat muddled by hype ('SMART & EFFICIENT') and the name suggests filing content while the body emphasizes financial metrics.

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?

Strong when-to-use guidance: it distinguishes generic mode (omit specific_metrics) from specific mode (provide the parameter), gives a concrete TTM workflow, and points to get_available_metrics for discovery and download_filing_text/full-text search for continuation. It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_latest_10k or get_company_facts, so it stops short of a 5.

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