filings_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison but does not explicitly state that no changes are made to filings, nor does it disclose any permissions, side effects, or edge cases (e.g., what happens when there are no changed values). The phrase 'return changed values' hints at output but lacks detail.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, has no redundant content, and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple with a clear output schema available, so a brief description may suffice. However, it lacks context on how the IDs are used, what 'normalized facts' means, and whether the tool requires any preconditions (e.g., filings must exist and be comparable). The description is minimal but not entirely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only says 'two filings' without explaining the purpose or format of first_filing_id and second_filing_id. It does not clarify the type of IDs expected (e.g., filing IDs vs. accession numbers) or the relationship between the two parameters. 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 the tool's function: 'Compare normalized facts in two filings and return changed values.' It uses a specific verb (compare) and resource (filings), and the context (normalized facts, changed values) distinguishes it from siblings like companies_compare or filing_read.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., filing_read or companies_compare) would be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage decisions to the agent.

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