list_filing_sections

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses real behavioral traits: it lists only sections actually present, reports token costs, and warns that Items 10-14 are often a single by-reference sentence. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees or error behavior, but 'Show' and 'read' make the read-only nature strongly implicit.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's core output, the second gives usage guidance, and the third adds a valuable domain caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 that an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable. The description supplies enough context for a straightforward list-type tool: what it returns at a high level, when to call it, and a relevant edge-case pattern. The main missing piece is guidance on how to obtain or format the accession parameter, but overall it is nearly complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the format or provenance of the two required parameters. 'company' and 'accession' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description never clarifies whether company is a name, ticker, or CIK, nor that accession likely comes from a prior list_filings call. The description must compensate for the missing schema documentation and does not.

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 ('Show') and resource ('which numbered items a filing actually contains'), and adds a distinct purpose beyond its name: token-cost budgeting. It is clearly differentiated from sibling read_filing_section by framing this as the listing/budgeting step, not the content-reading step.

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 says when to call this tool: 'Call this before read_filing_section when you are not sure a section exists or want to budget the read.' This directly names the alternative and the conditions that select this tool, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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