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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'find[s] specific reports and filings' and lists output details, but it does not disclose whether the name matching is exact or partial, whether results are paginated, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. Without these, an agent may not understand how to invoke the search correctly.

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 action and resource, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second highlights key output fields. It is concise and well-structured.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the return values (CIK, entity, file number) but lacks details about search behavior like partial vs exact name matching, result count, or expected name format (e.g., full fund name vs ticker). It is adequate but has gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 has one required parameter 'name' with description 'Name of the holder to search for'. The description clarifies that 'holder' refers to a 'fund or ETF name', adding domain-specific meaning beyond the schema. Though schema coverage is high, this clarification helps distinguish from company or CIK searches.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'search for mutual fund and ETF disclosures by name'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like searchCompaniesByName and getFundDisclosure by focusing on fund/ETF disclosure name searches. It also mentions what details are returned (CIK, entity info, file number), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when you need to find fund/ETF disclosures by name, but it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention sibling tools like searchName or getFundDisclosure, leaving the choice to the agent without comparative context.

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