Read a filing document

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is low, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: output is clean text with aligned tables, long text is paged, and next_offset is returned for continuation. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the paging and format disclosure are genuine value-add.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, then identification, then section extraction, then paging. Dense but every clause earns its place; the section examples are long but load-bearing.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return contract (clean text, aligned tables, next_offset for paging), which is the key missing piece. For a six-parameter zero-required read tool it is nearly complete, with only edge cases like precedence when both url and company are supplied left unstated.

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?

With 67% schema coverage the description meaningfully compensates: it enumerates real section ids with human labels ('1' Business, '1A' Risk Factors, '7' MD&A, etc.) including 10-Q variants, which the terse schema entry ('Item id to extract') does not, and it explains the max_chars/next_offset paging contract. The `offset` parameter itself is left unexplained, keeping it below 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 (Fetch/Read) and resource (an SEC filing's primary document) and adds the exact transformation applied (HTML converted to clean text, tables preserved as aligned rows). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_filings, which enumerates filings rather than reading one.

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?

Gives concrete identification routes (a www.sec.gov/Archives `url` from list_filings, or `company` + `accession`) and ties itself to the list_filings sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it differs from get_financials/get_xbrl_concept for structured data, so no explicit exclusions are present.

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