get_filing_exhibit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses chunk size (~24,000 characters), cursor-based continuation, plain-text return, and SEC EDGAR source. It omits rate limits, authentication needs, and error behavior, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core return, then pagination, dependency, and source in compact sentences. No wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained; the description covers chunking, pagination with cursor, and where to get accession numbers. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains cursor as the next-chunk token, gives an exhibit example, and points to list_filings for accession numbers. Ticker and exact accession format are left to inference, so compensation is partial.

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 it returns plain text of one filing exhibit, gives the EX-99.1 press-release example, and scopes it to chunked retrieval. It distinguishes from list_filings by directing accession lookup there, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_filing_section.

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?

Provides the prerequisite to get accession numbers from list_filings and explains pagination by passing next_cursor. Gives clear context for use, but does not state when to prefer this over get_filing_section or when not to use it.

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