analyze_filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform behavior. It states the tool retrieves metadata and documents, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, pagination) or permissions needed. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise, with an introductory sentence explaining purpose and when to use, followed by a concrete example. Every sentence is informative and there is no extraneous 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?

For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers the main use case and prerequisites. However, without an output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing what metadata fields are returned or the structure of the documents list. Minor gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond stating they are required. The example shows a correct format but adds no semantic context about what CIK or accessionNumber represent, leaving the agent to infer from names 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'filing's metadata and list of attached documents'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by framing it as a preliminary step before deeper analysis, which contrasts with siblings like company_financials or insider_trades.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you need to understand filing contents before deeper analysis') and implies not to use it for searching or financial analysis. It could be improved by explicitly stating that siblings like search_filings or company_financials are for other purposes.

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