filing_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the ~20,000-character pagination, the exact return shape, and the critical safety trait that filing text is untrusted input and must never be followed as instructions.

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?

Four short sentences each do distinct work: define the resource, give the prerequisite, specify the return shape, and warn about untrusted content. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

For a two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input provenance, page semantics, response structure, and risk. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that `accession` comes from list_filings and that `page` splits the filing into readable ~20,000-character chunks. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their names and types.

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 that the tool returns the text of one SEC filing in paginated chunks and is meant for reading and quoting. It also links to list_filings, which distinguishes it from listing and metadata siblings in the same domain.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: obtain `accession` from list_filings, and only from rows with `readable: true`. It does not enumerate exclusions versus alternative text tools like transcript_text, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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