get_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavior: missing ids surfaced in ``not_found``, text extraction off by default, and the text window being bounded. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loads the batch purpose and the sibling contrast, then groups parameter relationships compactly. Minor redundancy with schema defaults (text off by default is stated twice) keeps it just shy of 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still flags the ``not_found`` field and the default-off text behavior. Combined with the id-count limit and source constraint, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the 3 baseline would apply on defaults alone. The description goes further by spelling out inter-parameter relationships: max_text_chars is per filing and only effective when include_text is true, and include_tables is independent of the text window.

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 precise verb and resource ('read several filings in one call, up to 50 ids') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_filing for single-filing reads. An agent can distinguish it from get_filing and search_filings without opening any 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?

Names the alternative ('Use get_filing instead to read a single filing') with the exact condition that selects it, and states the source constraint for ids ('must come from search_filings'). Both the routing decision and the prerequisite are explicit.

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