get_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond those: returned metadata, a bounded text window, and that missing ids are listed in 'not_found'. This gives the agent expectations about output shape and edge cases without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Some redundancy exists ('Text is off by default' repeats the schema default), but it is short, readable, and not bloated.

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 that the schema covers all parameter semantics and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential contextual details: batching limit, returned metadata plus optional text window, not-found behavior, and read-only safety. It omits mention of include_tables in prose, but the schema handles that parameter fully.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds only marginal extra meaning, such as 'bounded text window' and 'text is off by default', which mostly mirrors the schema's max_text_chars and default false values rather than adding substantive new semantic detail.

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 action and resource: 'read several filings in one call (up to 50 ids)'. This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like get_filing by emphasizing the batched/batch nature.

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 instruction 'Use this to read several filings in one call' gives a clear batching use case and the read-only nature is reinforced by 'Read-only'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the batching framing gives enough context for an agent to select it over singular or search tools.

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