get_filing_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free cost, the subset of returned data, and that full data requires payment. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a preview tool this is adequate.

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, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear formatting with example arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no waste.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on what is included/excluded without needing to detail return values. It references sibling tools and provides enough context for an agent to make a correct decision.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by providing example arguments (minimal and maximal) and explaining that document_id defaults to a demo filing. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states it is a free preview of one SEC filing, listing exactly what is included (agent_summary, financial_metrics) and what is not (alpha_signals, causality_events). It differentiates from the sibling tool purchase_filing by specifying evaluation vs. full purchase.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to evaluate quality before purchasing. It compares with purchase_filing, states it's free, and provides example arguments including a default demo, giving clear usage context.

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