SEC Company Filings

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds specific behavioral details: returns up to 1000 filings, lists specific form types, and mentions document URL and description. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action, input, sample output, and limit. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 has one required parameter, thorough annotations, and an output schema (implied by description), the description covers input, behavior, and output adequately. It is complete for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of cik. The description adds value by noting 'Find via company_search', guiding the user to obtain the CIK. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 the action 'List recent SEC filings' and the resource 'for a company by CIK number'. It provides examples of filing types and output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like finance.edgar.company_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 implies usage for listing filings by CIK but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like finance.edgar.company_facts or finance.edgar.xbrl_concept. Some guidance on choosing among EDGAR tools would improve it.

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