Get Filing Exhibits

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only. The description adds behavioral context by stating it excludes XML/XBRL exhibits and returns metadata (not full content), which clarifies the tool's scope beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: listing purpose, return content, and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 tool is a simple listing operation with read-only annotations, an output schema (not detailed but present), and clear parameter description in schema, the tool description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, how to use it next, and what it excludes.

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 100% description coverage for the only parameter (filingId), referencing sibling tool search_sec_filings. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'within an SEC filing' but does not elaborate on the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists exhibits within an SEC filing, returns metadata (type, description, size), and explicitly excludes XML/XBRL exhibits. It distinguishes itself from get_exhibit_content by positioning this tool as a discovery step.

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 tells the agent to use this tool to identify which exhibits to read with get_exhibit_content, providing clear usage context. It also notes that XML/XBRL exhibits are excluded, hinting at alternatives. However, it does not address when not to use this in favor of other sibling tools like get_filing_document.

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