filing_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that responses are 'bounded, paginated', which is a positive trait, but it fails to explain what 'bounded' means (e.g., via max_chars), how pagination works (offset), whether refresh has side effects, or whether any permissions are needed. The safety profile (read-only) is only implied by the word 'Read', which is insufficient.

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 with no filler or redundant information. It conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (bounded, paginated) in just ten words, earning high marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is incomplete for a tool with five parameters. It lacks any guidance on required fields (filing_id, section), optional parameters (offset, refresh, max_chars), or prerequisites like obtaining the section name. The brevity leaves the agent to guess parameter usage, making the description insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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, but it does not explain any of the five parameters. The phrase 'bounded, paginated' loosely relates to max_chars and offset, but no parameter names or meanings are given. For a tool with multiple parameters, this is extremely inadequate; the agent cannot correctly map arguments from the description alone.

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 the tool reads one named filing section, using the verb 'Read' with a specific resource ('one named filing section') and notes the bounded, paginated response. This distinguishes it from siblings like filing_sections (lists sections) and filing_markdown (full text), making it distinct among the filing tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a specific named filing section is needed), and the phrase 'one named filing section' hints that the section name must already be known, possibly from filing_sections. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving usage context mostly inferential.

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