get_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), what 'recent' means in terms of timeframe, how many filings are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too sparse to convey behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is efficient and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, the description omits critical operational details such as the exact time window for 'recent', any pagination or limit behavior, and whether both Form 4 and 8-K are always returned together. With no annotations and a sparse description, an agent would likely need to probe the tool to understand its full behavior.

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 compensate for the undocumented 'ticker' parameter. It adds 'for one ticker', which confirms the parameter is a single symbol, but this is already obvious from the parameter name and type. No additional constraints, formats, or examples are provided, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('filings'), and the scope ('one ticker'), and explicitly enumerates the types (Form 4 and 8-K). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_macro or get_stage, which target entirely different data.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, nor does it exclude any scenarios. Since the siblings are semantically unrelated, an agent might still infer usage from the domain, but no explicit direction is given.

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