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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that filings are 'recent' and returns specific fields, but does not define 'recent' (e.g., timeframe) or disclose any rate limits. For a safe, read-only tool with annotations, this is adequate but not above baseline.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and optional filter. No extraneous information. Every word serves a clear function.

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 simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers input scope and returned data. It explicitly mentions the return fields (dates, types, accession numbers). The annotations cover safety and idempotency, making the description complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description only restates the optional type filter without adding new meaning. It correctly mentions CIK as identifier but does not add constraints or examples beyond the schema's examples.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'SEC filings', the scope 'recent' and 'by CIK', and optional filtering by type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_company_facts' which retrieves standardized financial data rather than raw filings.

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 implies usage for searching SEC filings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'get_company_facts' or 'deep_research'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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