get_filing

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds a precise paging contract: document_text is a window of max_text_chars from text_offset, text_truncated signals another page, and next_text_offset is the continuation point. It also discloses that tables are only included when include_tables is true, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: core purpose first, then return fields, paging behavior, table inclusion, and the source of IDs. Every sentence contributes operational guidance with no filler or redundancy.

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 a full input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining operational essentials: paging, table inclusion, and how to get the filing ID. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and process paginated results.

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 schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is solid. The description adds extra relational meaning by explaining how text_offset, max_text_chars, and next_text_offset work together for pagingapper. It does not add much on filing_id, but the schema already covers that sufficiently.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'read one filing's metadata and extracted document content.' It clearly identifies this as a single-filing accessor and distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings by directing agents to obtain IDs from search_filings.

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 states the intended use case ('Use this to read one filing's...') and the prerequisite workflow of obtaining IDs from search_filings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_filings or describe when not to use them, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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