list_filings

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the description earns credit by adding genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ordered newest-first, coverage is limited to the submissions API's recent window (~1,000 filings), and form_type is an exact match that excludes amended variants. The ~1,000-filing ceiling is a real constraint an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the form_type caveat and the coverage limit. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return fields need not be explained, and the description still briefly names document_url/index_url/source_url for citation. The main behavioral constraint is disclosed; only routing guidance versus siblings is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: cik format, limit bounds, and form_type matching are all already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of exact-match form_type semantics adds only marginal meaning beyond that.

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 (List) plus resource (a company's SEC filings), and adds ordering ('newest first') and returned identifiers (accession numbers, URLs). The contrast with get_filing_section is only implicit, so sibling differentiation is left for the agent to infer.

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 by scope statements: exact form_type matching, recent-filings window, and citation practice. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_company or get_filing_section, and gives no explicit exclusions.

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