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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns specific fields (entity, CIK, dates, accession number), explains the significance of the 8-K 'items' array, and notes that results can be fed directly into edgar_filing_text/documents without a second lookup. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but with the safety profile already annotated, the added context goes beyond the minimum.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and authoritativeness. It packs substantial detail (return fields, 8-K items, downstream chaining) into a compact paragraph without fluff. Slightly longer than necessary but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (5 params, output schema, many siblings), the description is highly complete: it explains the tool's scope, return value highlights, how to chain with related tools, the 8-K item codes' signal value, and explicitly contrasts with the company-specific alternative. The output schema covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to restate it. No significant gaps remain.

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%, with each parameter already described (query, limit, form_type, start_date, end_date). The description adds minor clarifications like mapping form types to annual/quarterly/current event and notes the date range, but this mostly repeats schema information. The accessory number 'feed straight into' detail relates to return values, not parameter semantics, so the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('SEC filings' via EDGAR's full-text index), clearly stating it is the authoritative tool for finding filings that mention a topic. It distinguishes itself from the sibling edgar_company_filings by noting it searches across the whole market rather than for a specific company.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for certain query types and gives an exclusion: 'not for a specific company (for that use edgar_company_filings)'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a named alternative.

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