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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the returned fields (company, form, filing date, 8-K items, document URL), the 2001 corpus boundary, and the default 365-day date window that silently narrows results — a real gotcha an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is before syntax, return shape and defaults. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, syntax, returns and defaults. The only remaining gap is paging behavior against EDGAR's 100-result pages, which is only referenced in the offset parameter rather than the description.

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 seven parameters are already documented with types, patterns, defaults and bounds; the baseline is 3. The description does add one thing the schema lacks — boolean OR support — but otherwise restates form-type, date-range and CIK filtering that the schema already spells out in more detail.

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 and resource ('Full-text search across SEC filings') plus a coverage window ('since 2001') and the underlying system (EDGAR FTS). An agent can immediately separate this from structured siblings like get_company_filings or get_company_concept, since this one searches text across all filers rather than returning one company's structured records.

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 query-syntax and filter guidance, and the default 365-day window hints at typical use, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives such as get_company_filings once a CIK is known. The ciks param points at resolve_company, which is helpful, but the choice between this tool and get_company_filings is left to inference.

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