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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only search/retrieval operation, which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or specifics about the response structure. It is not misleading but adds minimal extra value beyond the obvious.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by clarifying examples. It is concise, with no redundant or unnecessary information, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 relatively simple search tool, the description adequately conveys its purpose and examples. It lacks an output schema, so mentioning the return structure would be helpful, but 'Retrieve filings' gives a general idea. Required parameters like from/to are not highlighted in the description, but they are captured in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters documented (formType, from, to, page, limit). The description adds examples of form types (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K) but does not elaborate on date formats or pagination details, which are already covered in the schema. Thus, it provides little added meaning 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for specific SEC filings by form type' with examples of 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like getFilingsByCIK and getFilingsBySymbol, which filter by CIK or symbol.

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 this tool should be used when filtering SEC filings by form type, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks clear when-not guidance or references to sibling tools, so the usage context is only moderately clear.

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