filing_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the data source (data.sec.gov), the free tier A access, the best-effort heading-scan extraction, the guarantee that text is never invented, and the failure mode returning ok=False with a readable reason. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant caveats about failure modes and extraction quality in a compact, readable way.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, where data comes from, what can go wrong, and how failures are signaled. It would be stronger with explicit mention of the success return shape, but the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage is low at 33%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning by explaining 'form' via examples like 10-K and 20-F and by linking 'ticker' to CIK lookup. However, it does not fully document accepted form values, ticker formatting, or the exact behavior of the items parameter beyond the schema's own minimal description.

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 specific action: extracting item-section text from the most recent SEC filing of a given form for a given ticker. This is a concrete verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like company_facts or insider_activity.

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 clear context for when the tool applies: retrieving specific sections from a ticker's latest SEC filing of a specified form. It gives a concrete edge case with foreign private issuers filing 20-F instead of 10-K and explains the ok=False failure behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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