get_filing_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return type (full text and metadata) and provides a helpful example for doc_id. However, it does not mention error handling behavior, whether sections may be missing, rate limits, or any side effects. It is adequate for a simple read operation but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary detail without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description adequately covers the input parameters and return type, and an output schema exists, so exhaustive return field documentation is unnecessary. It lacks discussion of edge cases or usage scenarios, but for a straightforward getter with two required parameters, the context is reasonably 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?

The schema has no descriptions for its two parameters, but the description fully compensates by explaining doc_id as an EDINET document ID with a concrete example, and section as a section key with an enumerated list of valid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool retrieves the full text of a specific section from a filing, using the verb '取得します' (retrieve) and identifies the resource as a filing section. The provided section keys (risk_factors, md_and_a, etc.) further distinguish it from sibling tools like search_filings or compare_sections.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: one would use this when needing section text from a known filing ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites mentioned beyond the required parameters.

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