sec_filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the source (EDGAR) and types of filings, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains beyond 'full text'. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, this 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the aliasing of parameters could be more succinctly explained (e.g., noting all three refer to the same input).

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining parameter purposes and providing examples. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a tool fetching financial documents, more context on usage scenarios or limitations would improve completeness.

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 that 'ticker_or_cik', 'symbol', and 'ticker' are aliases for identifying companies, and 'form_type' specifies the SEC form, with examples. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., CIK number length) or default behavior, leaving gaps.

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 retrieves 'Full text of SEC filings from EDGAR' and lists specific document types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, proxy statements). It uses a specific verb ('Full text of') and identifies the resource (SEC filings), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_fundamentals' which might provide different financial 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 like 'company_fundamentals' or 'stock_quote'. It lists the types of filings available but doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings or any prerequisites for use.

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