get_filing_sample

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

The description discloses what is included (agent_summary, financial_metrics) and excluded (alpha_signals/causality_events), along with the cost context. However, no annotations exist, and the description could further clarify if there are any side effects or idempotency, though not essential.

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 extremely concise, using bullet points and clear sections (cost, example arguments). Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics adequately. It leaves no significant gaps.

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 single parameter document_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining it comes from search_filings and defaults to a demo filing, which supplements the schema.

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 provides a free preview of one SEC filing, specifically a compact row from fi_listings_portfolio_compact, and contrasts with purchase_filing. The verb 'get' combined with resource 'filing_sample' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 compares with purchase_filing: 'sample = evaluate quality; purchase = full evidence-backed JSON'. It also mentions the cost ($0) and what is included vs. not included, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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