list_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: which forms appear, the `readable` flag, and that ownership forms are XML tables with nothing to read. However, it leaves some behavioral details unspecified, such as how 'recent' is bounded, pagination, or symbol-format expectations.

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 exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence provides actionable workflow instructions. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or 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 an output schema exists and the key sibling tool is filing_text, the description covers what an agent needs to list filings and know which ones are readable. It could mention the relationship to filing_feed or define 'recent' more precisely, but these are minor gaps for a list tool of this simplicity.

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?

There is only one parameter (`symbol`) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'A symbol's recent SEC EDGAR filings' makes clear that `symbol` is a ticker-like identifier, but it does not clarify format, case sensitivity, or whether full company names are accepted.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') plus a concrete resource ('a symbol's recent SEC EDGAR filings'), and enumerates exactly which form types are included. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from filing_text by explaining that this tool lists filings while filing_text reads them.

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 next-step guidance: use the `accession` from rows with `readable: true` to read one with filing_text, and warns that ownership forms are XML tables with nothing to read. It does not explicitly name alternative listing tools like filing_feed or ownership, but the main routing decision is clear.

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