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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source authenticity ('real, dated filings straight from EDGAR, not a guess') which is useful trust context, but omits return format, pagination, rate limits, or result-size behavior. Partial but not rich disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and index. The parenthetical definition is helpful framing, though slightly verbose; no real waste.

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-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and optional filtering. Return format is the only notable omission, but given the search-and-list nature and full schema coverage, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (days, company) are already documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (SEC EDGAR full-text index for going-concern filings), and names the exact filing types (10-K/10-Q/NT). The parenthetical defining 'going concern' language clarifies the domain-specific term, making the purpose unambiguous even without siblings.

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?

Implies usage (find going-concern filings, optionally filter by company) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no sibling tools exist to route against. Adequate context but no guidance framing.

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