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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the return type (evidence.v1 records with provenance) and the semantic caveat that lexical relevance is not a truth verdict, which guards against over-interpreting results.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the return contract and the relevance caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained; the description still names the record type for orientation. All parameters are schema-documented and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the routing between search and the sibling build/verify tools is left implicit, a minor gap.

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 all eight parameters (q, item, forms, limit, filings, history, section, identifier) are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or guidance, so the 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 (find) and resource (lexically relevant primary-source evidence across SEC filings), and explicitly disambiguates from sibling verify_claim by noting 'relevance is not a truth verdict'. An agent can distinguish this from build_evidence_pack and compare_filings without opening schemas.

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: the phrase 'relevance is not a truth verdict' hints that truth-checking belongs to verify_claim, and 'bounded set' signals scope. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given, leaving selection between this and build_evidence_pack or build_disclosure_matrix to inference.

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