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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags two traits the schema does not: a 2-credit cost and a hard one-year recency window. However, it says nothing about authentication, pagination, result ordering, default result count, or whether the call is read-only vs side-effecting, which for an unannotated tool is a substantial gap.

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 compact sentences with the primary capability front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and the cost tag. No filler, no redundancy, and the parenthetical cost is easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back from a filings search — it does not mention result shape, ordering, or pagination behavior. The recency and cost constraints are well covered, but return-value expectations and limit behavior leave an agent guessing.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema descriptions are placeholders ("string", "number"), so the text genuinely earns credit. It marks `forms` as optional and supplies concrete form-type examples (10-K, 8-K, S-1) absent from the schema, and clarifies that `query` drives full-text matching. It says nothing about `limit` semantics, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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+resource ("Full-text search of SEC filings") with scope ("in the last year") and an optional filter. The domain is unmistakable against siblings eu_tenders and world_bank, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 only implied: full-text search implies a query-driven lookup, and the ")cost: 2 credits" note hints at a trade-off but gives no alternative to weigh it against. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on how to construct the query.

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