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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the search is exact-phrase, covers all filings since 2001, and incurs a $0.01 per-call cost. It also states what data is returned. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing useful operational details.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately states the returned data and cost. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's utility and integration with other tools.

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, all well-documented in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload (company, form, date, accession number). It also notes the cost and downstream applicability, making it complete for an agent to decide on usage. No gaps that would hinder correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does hint that the 'q' parameter is an exact phrase (reinforced in description) and mentions limit defaults, but no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is high.

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 it performs exact-phrase full-text search over all EDGAR filings since 2001 and lists the returned fields (company, form, date, accession number). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like filing_section and compare_filings by positioning results as ready for those tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (searching for filings containing a specific phrase) and suggests downstream tools (filing_section, compare_filings). However, it lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use vs. latest_filings), so it's not fully explicit about alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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