list_pending_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns total when known, enforces a limit, and defaults to unprocessed status. It doesn't describe pagination or ordering, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then defaults, then return behavior. No wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers defaults, accepted values, and return shape. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but those are minor for a simple list tool with a limit parameter.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds the default behavior and the comma-separated mix capability, which is slightly redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('list'), a resource ('filings'), and a clear dimension ('by document-processing status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_filings and get_filings by focusing on status-based listing. The default and accepted statuses are explicitly enumerated.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: to list filings by document-processing status, with defaults and accepted values. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the status-focused scope and sibling context make the use case clear. A brief mention of when not to use it (e.g., for full-text search) would push this to 5.

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