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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Keyless' and '[$0.05/call]' reveal access and cost, and it lists the output fields (company, form type, filing date, accession number, document link). However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or the maximum number of results, which are important for an agent to understand the tool's response characteristics. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and these omissions lower the score.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured, with a clear breakdown after 'Params —' and an example at the end. Every sentence contributes either to explaining functionality, parameters, or cost. It is slightly dense but not verbose or repetitive, maintaining good information density.

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 that there is no output schema and the input schema is minimal, the description provides essential context: the tool's purpose, search inputs, example usage, cost, and the fields returned. It lacks details on pagination, result limits, and error responses, but the tool is a straightforward search function, and the description covers the core information an agent needs to make an initial call. The example further aids understanding.

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 actual JSON schema only defines a single 'params' object with no inner structure, providing zero coverage. The description compensates by explicitly listing and explaining each intended parameter: q (full-text query), company (entity name), cik (SEC CIK), type (form type with examples), dateRange (format YYYY-MM-DD..YYYY-MM-DD), and maxItems (integer). It also includes a concrete example, making the semantics completely clear despite the schema's opacity.

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: 'SEC filings full-text search' with explicit details on the types of filings (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, and every other form type) and the search facets (keyword, company name, ticker, CIK, date-range). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'congress_trades' or 'author_search' by its focus on SEC EDGAR filings, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 states 'For SEC filings research and disclosure monitoring,' which indicates the appropriate use case. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the specificity of the domain and search parameters makes it clear when this tool should be chosen. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer usage context.

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