Screen SEC Filings

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns filings enriched with company metadata, is described as the most powerful filing discovery tool, and explicitly warns that it returns FILINGS rather than a company universe. The schema also transparently documents the continuous-ingestion paging caveat, which helps an agent avoid non-exhaustive traversal.

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, then gives examples, then explicitly distinguishes sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the number of routing and usage decisions an agent must make.

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 12 optional parameters, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers filtering, enrichment, example use cases, sibling routing, and an important paging caveat. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and avoid misusing it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by grouping parameters into company-level filters vs. filing-level filters and tying them to example queries. It also clarifies the market-cap distinction when recommending screen_companies. This is above baseline but still depends heavily on the schema for individual parameter details.

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 opens with 'Screen SEC filings across all companies...' and immediately specifies the verb, resource, and filter dimensions. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_sec_filings and screen_companies, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

It provides concrete use-case examples ('find all S-1 filings from biotech companies under $500M market cap') and gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: use search_sec_filings when the CIK is already known, and use screen_companies when the goal is to enumerate or count companies by market cap. This is explicit routing with no ambiguity left to inference.

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