sec_filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (links to documents) and parameter behavior (defaults, max count, filing type meanings), but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds meaningful context but is not exhaustive.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a line about output, a structured Args section with bullet points, and three clear examples. No redundant information; every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers parameters, output type, and usage examples. The only notable gap is the lack of usage alternatives, but that is covered under Usage Guidelines. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: symbol format with examples, filing_type options with meanings, and count with default and max. Examples further illustrate valid combinations, far exceeding schema information.

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 'Get SEC filings for a US-listed company' and specifies it 'Returns links to actual filing documents on SEC EDGAR,' which defines the verb, resource, and scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'sec_filing_search', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied via examples (e.g., getting annual reports for AAPL), but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sec_filing_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage only.

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