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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a 'live search' and 'latest filings,' but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, return format, pagination, or how the full-text search behaves. While not misleading, it lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first clearly states the tool's function, and the second suggests its usage context. There is no redundant information, and key points are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, and search syntax. It adequately explains the core functionality but lacks details on what the search results contain, how pagination works, or any limitations. Sibling tools are present but not differentiated beyond the 'ad-hoc' hint.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context by stating the tool searches 'full-text' (for q) and 'in a date range' (for start/end), but does not explicitly describe the date parameters 'start' and 'end' or their formats. The added value is moderate, but the description compensates partially for the missing schema descriptions.

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 performs a 'Direct live search of SEC EDGAR full-text for the latest filings of a form type in a date range.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('SEC EDGAR full-text'), and the phrase 'Use for ad-hoc lookups' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like company_watch or filing_digest.

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 mentions 'Use for ad-hoc lookups,' which gives some context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools. More specific guidance on when to prefer alternatives like filing_digest or whats_new_since would improve this dimension.

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