get_filing_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that any URL within the folder is accepted (tolerant input resolution) and by outlining the returned dictionary structure, going beyond 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 the core behavior in one sentence, then compact Args and Returns sections. The Returns block partly duplicates the existing output schema, so it is slightly less than maximally efficient.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema; the description covers the input's flexibility and the general return shape. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though sibling differentiation would make it airtight.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains that filing_url can be any URL inside the filing folder and gives the concrete SEC Archives path shape. It stops short of edge cases (e.g., what happens with a non-filing URL), so not a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every document in a filing') and enumerates scope (main document, exhibits, XBRL, XML) plus returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_filing_content or get_filing_size, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 args note ('Any URL inside the filing folder') tells the agent what input to supply, which implicitly defines when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_filing_content, get_filing_size, or download_filing_text, leaving the choice to inference.

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