filing_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — results come from a cache (implying possible staleness) and content is paginated rather than returned whole. It stops short of describing error behavior for missing filings or EDGAR access limits.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the pagination contract immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 explanation is unnecessary; the description covers the two things an agent must know to call it correctly (section selection and paging). Minor gaps: what happens with an invalid/absent section or when the cache lacks the filing, and how `max_chars` interacts with pagination.

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 coverage is 67%, so several parameters are self-documenting (form examples, index 0=latest, section enum values, company input forms). The description usefully explains the offset/next_offset contract, which the schema leaves entirely undescribed, but `max_chars` and the paging size interaction remain undocumented, so compensation is only 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 a specific verb (read) plus resource (SEC filing as text) and scope (by section, from EDGAR, cached). An agent can tell it retrieves filing content. It does not name the obvious sibling (filing_diff) to contrast retrieval vs. comparison, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete in-tool usage mechanics — long sections are paged, pass `next_offset` back as `offset` — which is genuinely actionable. But it offers no guidance on when to pick this over `filing_diff` or `search`, and no prerequisites (e.g. company resolution failures, whether a form/index must exist).

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