Get Exhibit Content

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation by stating it returns content. The description adds context about truncation behavior and return fields. No contradictions; minor improvement could mention response format or rate 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and returned fields, the second provides usage direction for the parameter and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and prerequisite. No gaps for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 100%. The description adds semantic value by explaining the maxLength parameter's effect (truncation and truncated boolean) and instructing users to find exhibit IDs via get_filing_exhibits, which is helpful 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 purpose: getting the full text/HTML content of a single SEC filing exhibit. It specifies the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_filing_exhibits and get_filing_document.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells users to first find exhibit IDs using get_filing_exhibits and explains how to use the maxLength parameter to truncate large exhibits. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, the use case is well defined.

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