get_filing_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it extracts sections and returns them, but provides no details on side effects, authentication needs, or data format beyond a brief list of example sections.

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 very concise, with a single introductory sentence and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameters, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned data. Given the simplicity of the tool (3 required params, no nested objects), completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description provides clear parameter explanations within the Args list (e.g., identifier as ticker or CIK, accession_number, form_type with allowed values). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema property names alone, though examples or format hints are missing.

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 the tool extracts specific sections from 10-K or 10-Q filings, specifying the verb (extract), resource (sections from filings), and the types of forms (10-K, 10-Q). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_filing_content.

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 implies usage when needing sections from filings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_filing_content or search functions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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