read_filing_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses output truncation behavior ('Output is capped at max_tokens'), the offset continuation mechanism, and that the response indicates how much was cut. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read tool the disclosed behaviors are substantial and directly relevant to invocation.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and the key contrast with whole-document reads. The section list is a scannable parenthetical enumeration, and the output behavior is summarized in two short sentences. Every sentence earns its place; 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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no annotations, no enums in schema), the description covers the most critical context: section semantics, output truncation, and continuation. It does not explain how to obtain 'accession' or 'company' values, but those are likely covered by sibling tools (list_filings, find_company). The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to describe return values. A small gap remains around error cases or what happens with invalid section names, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'section' by listing valid values, and it explains 'offset' and 'max_tokens' behaviorally ('If the section is longer you get an offset to continue from'; 'Output is capped at max_tokens'). It does not explain 'company' or 'accession' formats, but those are likely established by sibling tools (find_company, list_filings), so the compensation is strong where it matters most.

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 ('Read') and resource ('ONE section of a filing'), and explicitly contrasts with reading the whole document. It also enumerates the exact section identifiers (business, risk_factors, etc.), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_filing_sections and get_financial_facts.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it is 'the main tool' for reading filing sections, and it advises reading mdna before financial statements. It also implies when not to use it (when you need the whole document) and provides a curated list of sections, which helps an agent select the right section without opening the schema.

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