eu-filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or error handling. It only mentions the data source and geographic coverage, omitting any operational behaviors. The description is essentially a high-level capability statement with no caveats or detailed semantics.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists ("European financial filings" vs "EU regulated markets"), but it is not verbose or cluttered. It earns a 4 for clarity without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, 21 methods, nested objects), the description is too high-level to be complete. It doesn't explain how methods relate, provide example workflows, or set expectations about output formats. The schema helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of practical usage context.

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 100%, and each parameter includes a description listing applicable methods. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, and the description doesn't detract.

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 identifies the tool as a unified access point for European financial filings via ESEF, specifying the resource (company filings, financial statements, XBRL data) and the API source (filings.xbrl.org). It is a specific verb+resource statement, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings (none listed), which is why it doesn't get a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or how to choose among the 21 methods. The only usage hints are embedded in the schema's parameter descriptions, but the tool description itself offers no direction, prerequisites, or context for method selection.

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